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

IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES BILL.

On the Irish Choweh Bill being brought up,
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM rose and said, before
that Bill went furth.r he wisled to know—

Earl SHAFTESBURY requested him not to keep

the Commons in waiting ; he could make his speech
upon the motion for the firer. reading.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM—Is there no motion
with regard to that Bill before the House?
He was informed there was not, and the other Bills
having been brought up, the Noble Duke said, seeing the
Noble Earl at the head of the Government in his place, he
wished to know from him when he meant to move the
first reading of the Irish Church Bill ?
Earl GREY said his intention was to pursue the very
same course with it as with other Bills, that was imme-
diately to move that it be read a first time, and appoint a
day for the second reading. The House could not possi-
bly know what the Bill was unless it was read a first time.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM said that he under-
stood that there were matters in it that would affect the
prerogatives of the Crown. He wished to know whether
the Noble Earl was authorized to bring down a formal
message to show that his Majesty approved of the Bill,
and consented to its clauses that affected him ?

Earl GREY said he was prepared to give his Majesty's
consent in the usual manner—that was by one of his Ma-
jesty's advisers, and not by a formal message.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM apprehended that when
a surrender of the prerogative was asked for, it was ne-
cessary for their Lordships to inquire upon what evidence
it was that his Majesty had been induced to make such
surrender of the interests of his subjects. He believed it
was necessary for the Ministers to bring down a regular
message.

Earl GREY believed that the Noble Duke was wrongly
informed. The usual course was that his Majesty's consent
should be expressed to the House by one of the Ministers
of the Crown, stating that he was commanded by his
Majesty to do so ; besides, their Lordships had been re-
commended to take this subject into their consideration
in bis speech from the throne at the beginning of the

session.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM said it would be better
to bring down a formal message, in order that their Lord-
ships' orders might be kept up ; and in order that their
Lordships might be assured that his Majesty authorized
the surrender of his prerogative.
Earl GREY repeated that it was not necessary to bring
down a formal message on the subji ct. He was confirmed
by the clerk at the table in saying that the usual course
was for the consent of his Majesty to be given by one of
his Ministers; and also that it was not tie, essary that it
should be given on the first reading, but might be given
upon any stage of the Bill. However, there could be no
difficulty on the matter, as he was then prepared to give
the required consent, or to bring down a formal mes-
sage, if that course were deemed necessary.
Tl,e Duke of BUCKINGHAM said it was still his
opinion that his Majesty should certify his consent to the
House, and that their Lordships should not take one step
without the Head of the Church consented to this, he
would cell it, spoliation Bill.
Earl GREY said he could certainly see no reason why
any other than the usual course should be taken, or that
his Majesty's consent should be obtained in the unusual
course the Noble Lord opposite wished. lle, as a Minister
of the Crown, took the responihility upon himself. More
than this he did not think it necessary to state on the
present occasion.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND did not intend to op-
pose the first reading of the Bill ; but he thought suffi-
cient time should be given for the consideration of such
an important question.
Earl GREY said that, considering how long
the Bill had been before the public, considering
the intimate knowledge which had just been
shown by the Nolle Duke (Buckingham), if
he should hsve proposed even an earlier day than he now
intended, he did not think the House woeld have had
cause to complain. The day which he should propose
would be Mondry, if it suites their Lordships' convenience.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND said, that there had
been so many alterations in the B;1; since it was presented
to the House of Commons, that he defied any man to be
acquainted with the exact terms of it.
The Earl of ELDON said that it was rather curious
thss the Noble ' rl opposite should oppose she motion
for obtaining his Majesty's consent before the first reading
of a Bill reciting that consent.
Lord DACRE presented a petition from a place in
cotnplainiug of the cornpuisory measure of the
T:the Commutation Bill brought into the House of Com-
mons.
On the suggestion of Lord WYNFORD, the petition
was withdrawn, from the informality of referring to a
Bill not in their Lordships' House.
IRISH CHURCH REFORM BILL.
The Bishop of BRISTOL presented a petition from the
clergy of the diocese of Oxford, against the Bill relating to
the Irish Churcb, which bad Just been read a first
time. He quite concurred in the prayer of the petition.
praying the H:cv,iach,i(uiiilcsehbliewibenenorautlylfld not agree to the Bill, for he
had paid great attention to it as it passed the other
House, and he must declare that he had never
s
ctletritoeasemllta;argbhudileicoatssuthties,urs,:airdinnc:thodear:e
iyt,vt Bill ifdl l
et
ahtsel
Protestant
death-blow
rectithtoa
nt calculatedtieeh uh
Protestantn tolre:
it
aainbnrjli
establish.
oe.
anent. It tended to destroy a church which, not
only
.in this country, but wherever it had been
ages
gnnedsht
ah de
order
been
tfior i
subjectol
p 8 firmest
os
tdhesupporterou n ttoyf
know-
ledge and liberty. He called, therefore, upon their Lord-
ships to reject it..—Petition laid on the table.
DIPLOMATIC EXPENDITURE.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved for returns,
which he understood were not objected to. When they
saw the enormous sums which had been, or were to be,
spent in carrying the plans of the Ministry into effect, he
should not be thought wrong in wishing to know some-
thing of the details of them. He begged to move,
therefore, for an account of the expenditure of the
department of Foreign Affairs since the sth of January,
1827 ; an account of the secret service money expended
in the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, and the Colonial
Department ; an account of the extraordinary expenditure
of the several missions of the Earl of Durham and the Duke
of Wellington in 1832 and 1826 ; and also of Sir S.
Canning's mission to Madrid.—Motion granted.
SCOTCH BURGHS.
The Earl of HADDINGTON rose to ask a question
with respect to the three Bills relating to Scotch Burghs,
just brought up
intimatelyfromthe Commons. As those Bills
were now on the table of the House, he thought the time
wasacrtomts:nat:
which he might be permitted to put a ques-
tion to the Noble Lord at the head of the Home
Department,
lajes
session,ty took the Government,
at
It would be in the recollection of
with those
fealltihtose Noble Lords
who had attended to the proceedings of the House, that his
commencementannouncing
of the t
hpre-
sentetr
earliestthe
oeeatti
o occasion of

tons of the burghs of England and Scotland. With respect
to the English boroughs, it was stated by Ministers that
Lire constitution of no one English borough precisely re-
s..m:bled another, it was necessary to precede legislation by

inqui:y with respect to England, but the Scotch boroughs in
their constitution being all nearly similar, the cause for
ing:iiry did not exist with respect to them. He was not
n w about to itiluire whether the adoption of such a view
was satisfactory or not, or whether there were not things
connected with the Scotch boroughs that had made
out a case to precede inquiry by legislation.—(Hear.)
It had, however shortly appeared, that although with re-
spect to Scotland inquiry was not to precede legislation,
yet still that inquiry was to take place; because it appeared
by the Order Book of the House of Commons, that,
some time in April, Dave was given to brine in a Bill
for a. Commission to examine into the Scotch Burgiu.
Now what be wished to know was whether it was the

itention of Isis Majesty's Government to proceed with

le. Commission, and also with the Bill?
Lord MELBOURNE said that the Commission would

have to inquire into many points not provided for in the
Bill, and, such being the case, he felt it his duty not to
delay proceeding with the Bill till the inquiry under the

Commission had taken place.

The Archbishop of DUBLIN presented petitions from

:he clergy of the dioceses of Dublin and Waterford re-

specting the Irish Church Temporalities' Bill. They ex-
pressed their readiness to assent to some alterations in the

exiting condition of the Irish Church, but they prayed

some modifications in the Bill now before the

He must say that several of the alterations suggested by
the petitioners had been already adopted by the other
House. In reference to the present and other petitions

on the same subject, he thought that one charge
lay virtually against not only the supporters

of the Bill, but- against some .of the objectors,
for many of the latter class were content that certain al-
terations should be made in the state of the church. Many
Noble Lords contended that the coronation oath pre-

vented his Majesty from giving his Royal Assent to such a
Bill. These petitioners were not of that opinion, for,
though they did not approve of parts of the Bill, they yet
prayed for some alterations. They considered that the
Coronation Oath bound the Sovereign in his executive and
not in his legislative capacity. One circumstance which ap-
peared to him to prove the correctness of this interpreta-
tion was that no similar oath was administered to the other
two branches of the Legislature. If applied to the Sove-
reign in his executive capacity only the oath would be in-
telligible enough ; but, if it applied to him in his legisla-
tive capacity, this consequence must follow, that they
would have four in place of three branches of the Legis-
lature, namely, King, Lords, Commons, and the Corona-
tion Oath. Those who drew up the Coronation Oath,
and were long in their graves, would thus have a voice in
the Legislature. He was no friend to hasty legislation,
but in his opinion the Legislature ought to be guided by
discretion and prudence, and not by the Coronation Oath,
considered as binding on the Sovereign in his legislative
capacity. I hat oath was intended to guard against the
encroachments of the prerogative on the rights of the other
branches of the Legislature.
The Earl of ELDON never expected to have heard in
that House the highest ecclesiastical authority in the Church
of Ireland say that the two other branches of the Legisla-
ture took the Coronation Oath as well as the King. When
the proper time arrived he should be prepared to discuss
this point with the Right Rev. Prelate. If the Right Rev.
Prelate's interpretation of the oath was a correct one,it would
be impossible to frame any oath that would be binding.
Earl GREY should be prepared at any other time to
maintain that the opinion of his Right Rev. Friend was
the correct one, and that his interpretation of the Corona-
tion Oath was consistent not only with the principles of
the Constitution but with sound reason. In this view he
was supported by the very beet and greatest auttoirities,
who always considered the oath as applying to the King
in his executive, and not in his legislative capacity. They
would have other opportunities of entering upon this
vexala questio. His Right Rev. Friend did not say that
the two other branches of the Legislature took the Coro-
nation Oath as well as the King. What he said was,
that if the oath bound the King in his legislative capacity
it ought to be taken equally by the other two branches of
the Legislature. Both Houses of Parliament did not take
it, and from thence his Right Rev. Friend concluded very
fairly that it did not bind the King as a Member of the
Legislature.
The Earl of ELDON said when the proper time ar-
rived he would state his opinions on the subject. He
would feel no dissatisfaction at being beaten if he satisfied
his own conscience.

The Bishop of EXETER totally differed from the Noble
Earl and from the Right Rev. Prelate. As the Noble
Earl bad pledged himself to br:ag forward this subject
hereafter, he should deter saying any more till he heard the
arguments of the Noble Earl.
Earl GREY did not pledge himself to bring forward the
subject. He gave no formal notice. What he said was, that
when the opportunity was given he should be prepared to
maint tin the opinions he always did upon this point.
The Dis:lop of EXETER alluded to what fell from the
Nohe Earl not upon this, but on a former occasion.
Earl GREY—Upon the occasion alluded to he said
only ..vhat he said now, that he should be prepared to
maintain his opinion on the coronation oath, either against
the Right Rev. Prelate or any other Noble Lord.
The Doke of CUMBERLAND understood the Noble
E-rl to say that the coronation oath had nothing to do
with thi.. Bill. Now in his opinion there never was any
question intro(! tcei into Parliament more nearly eon-
:.etited with the eoront.'ion oath thin this. _

Earl GREY—Such might be the opinion of the Illus-
trious Duke. It3ut he was no less coc.ident in his cvn
opinion than the Illusti lolls Duke was in hi,.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND—Let the N,ble Earl
look to the fifth article of the Act of Union. kVould he
day this Bill was not inconsisten- with it ?
Ea.l GREY had lojked at eat article and at th, coro-
nation oath, as carefully, perhaps, as the Illustrious Duke,
and he came to tht. conclusion *iiat the assent of the
Crown to this Bill was not inconsistent with de • r.

The Bishop of PETERBOROUGH presented a peti-
tion against the Irish Church Temporalities Bill from the
clergy of Peterborough.
The Earl of RODEN (resented similar petitions from a
parish in Ireland, the name of which we could not learn;
from the Archdeacon and Clergy of the diocese of Meath
and Kells ; from a certain body of seceders ; and from the
Irish Society of London. The latter body prayed that if
the Bill passed, provision should be made for preaching
the Gospel to the people of Ireland in Irish. He cor-
dially supported these petitions, and should feel it his duty,
at the very outset, to give this Bill all the opposition in
his power. The effect of it would be to destroy the
Church pooperty of England and Ireland, and with that
every other species of property which was held by the
same guarantee. His great objection, however, was,
that it struck the most deadly blow at the reformed
Church of Ireland. He felt this subject deeply, having
lived long, indeed having spent the greater part of his
life, in Ireland, and witnessed the blessings and advan-
tages the Protestant Establishment there conferred on the
country. He felt confident that nothing but the Pro-
testant religion could eventually deliver the people of
Ireland from that spiritual slavery to which they were so
long subjected.
LOCAL COURTS BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR having moved the order
of the day for the third reading of the Local Courts Bill,
end the question being put that the Bill be now read a
third time,
Lord WHARNCLIFFE opposed the motion. He hoped
they would not be deterred from doing their duty by any
thing that might be said or done out of doors. They were
told the eves of the public were upon them ; that they
were not disposed to act justly and fairly by the people;
but if their Lordships considered the measure as likely to
be injurious to society, they ought to reject it. If they
did not do so, of what use were their Lordships ?—(Hear.)
His objections to the Bill were, first, that it presented
itself to them under false pretences. He admitted that
the law, as regarded the recovery of small debts, was such
as required the interposition of the Legislature ; but this
Bill introduced new principles and new forms. He ad-
mitted that some counties were too large, and that in
consequence the expense of witnesses was greatly increased.
This might be remedied by holding the assizes oftener,
and in more places than one in a county. Another com-
plaint was the expense of fees. If the fees were too high
in the present Courts, why not reduce them? It sounded
very well to say that the people ought to have an opportu-
nity of settling their disputes speedily and cheaply. He
entertained some doubts of the policy of speedy justice.
This Bill, be it remembered, granted a remedy in these

2(—)(
/Val 0 6
C,urts in cases of 1;bel, s'ander, sod varihttftiptWoOli.
N,mr, with a resident Judge, with a ep:iiretl4lVl64
siring only of six, and with the assi,tann64,
he roust be permitted to expr P. his
fits anticipated from this me.sure. The effect_ 0-411tfr"—„
easure, if carried, would be to increase all soit'slerlik.'4ll•""
tion. They had been told by the Noble Chief
B:ron of the Court of Exchequer that the Bar gene-
rally were opposed to its adoption. At present men
1,0 practised at the Bar in Westminster Hall, &c.,
ere accustomed to pay the most profound regret to
e decisions of the Judges who presided over the Supe.
riLer theCour Bts,wil, however,
hlilearc,ongt thesehel ma
ebmi
rs feelingo f
the
existed.
Under Bar,
ho were men of high attainments, might
have as their antagonists in this new Court men who
o,ight be the lowest sort of attorneys, who were proposed
to be admitted into these courts (and when he spoke of
attorneys he did not mean to speak disrespectfully of them
as a body). Was it possible for gentlemen to practise in
this court, seeing the high-minded feeling of the profes-
sion? And then, again, hew would this measnreaffect

the bar, as to its immediate interests? He would say
that their Lordships were bound to b.ok to this. It did
a, pear to him (Lord Wharncliffe) that this Bill opened
e door to great abuse. Pot they were told that this
13 was introduced for the poor man's sake. In what
seise could it be said to be for the sake of the poor man
that this Bill was to pass? Were their Lordships to he
t .Id that, in this coontly, the rights of the poor were
t.amplel on from Lee want of the means of redress for
injuries received ? He thought that when their Lordships
looked to the state of society,they would find no man to say
that the rights of the poor were not especially attended
to. With respect to the rich, he could not see how the
provisions of thie Bill could affect them, seeing that a rich
m yes debt was generally fur a larger sum than 201. They
had been called upon, by the example of Scotland, to
adopt this Bill, and they had been referred to the Sheriff.'
Court in Scotland. He could not say much as to the
pr ietice of this court, but this be did know, that as iss
was at present carried on, it was by no means a court to'
w rich he should be glad to intrust his rights. He must;
also say, that he considered that the Scotch people were
by no means indisposed to litigation. After a few further
observations, the Noble Lord concluded by moving that
this Bill be read a third time this day six months.
The Earl of ROSSE considered that with the twoend-
ments which might be made to the measure it might be
so framed as to confer great benefit on the country. He
hi Id that the two great principles on which this Bill was
founded, were cheap law and the bringing it near home.
Th,, Earl of WICKLOW entered into some of the de-
tails of the measure, and concluded by declaring his in.
tendon to oppose the Bill.
Lord LYNDHURST had been charged—within he
would not say—but he ban been charged out of the House
with being influenced by party motives in his opposition
to this measure ; and he would beg leave to state the
position in which he stood with respect to this Bill. When
his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack first intro-
duced this Bill into their Lordships' House, he (the Lord
Chancellor) bad stated—and he had distinctly stated if
that this was not a Government measure, but that it
w.. 11 brought in upon his own personal responsibility. He
(Lord Lyndhurst) bad expressed to bis Noble and Learned
Friend is private the opinion which he entertained
of this Bi. 1; and therefore his Noble and Learned
Friend must have known that he intended to give it his
decided opposition. And, if since that period the measure
had been adopted by his Majesty's Government, there
could be no reason why he (Lord Lyndhurst) should
shrink from dechring the opinion which he bad originally
formed, and there could be no reason why he should not
express that opinion with confidence to their Lordships.
He wished, in the first place, to direct their Lordships
attention to the very commencement of this
which appeared to him to be, upon the very prin-
ciple on which it was formed, liable to the greatest
objection. It was not stated in the first clause
of the Bill that it was his Majesty's wish, or that
it was the intention of the Parliament, to establish a
certain number of Judges with certain limited jurisdic-
tions, and of certain emolument and appointments inci-
dental to these offices. All this was not stated ; but un-
limited power, nevertheless, was given to the King's
,Government, or rather to one member of it, that member
being his Noble and Learned Friend, to create any nutn-
ber of offices which he, in his judicial or discretionary
power, might deem to be necessary. He might nominate
any number of Judges, with appointments of 2,0001.,
with any number of Registrars, with salaries of '7OO/. or
SOW., and an unlimited number of other officers. He
would say that such a principle of legislation must be
productive of the most injurious consequences. He knew,
indeed, that his Noble and Learned Friend had personally
no wish whatever to avail himself of this patronage; and
he had stated as much in his (Lord Lyndbuntes) beating
in that House that their Lordships were not to legislate
for the Noble and Learned Lord. He might not always
hold the office which he so honourably filled that day.
He (Lord Lyndhurst) could suppose a person of popular
talents and of the great eloquence of the Noble and Learned
Lord, but not blessed with his moderation—he could
imagine the case of a person anxious for power, indifferent
to the existing institutions of the country, and ambitious

ofdf,boeuirn,g
atuhde founder of
thaenreerworesy
stotem
establish d eeir o tai s
souf
bpopular
l
power; and, should there at any time be a person hold-
ing the office of Lord Chancellor, what better instant
could he bake to consolidate his power than by such a
measure as this ? He implored their Lordships to take a
vew of the power and influence which this patronage
must bring to a Lord Chancellor who seas the dispenser
of the ecclesiastical patronage of the Crown to an immense
extent. He appointed Magistrates of the country, and in
addition to this he was to L ,ve the appointment, the
direct nomination, of thirteen of the Judges of the land;
be had the absolute appointment of the Judges of the
new Bankruptcy Court ; and if to these their Lord-
ships, threw into the scale the appointment of
tl.irty or forty Judges and Registrars proposed
by this Bill, it would be seen that, armed with these
powers, with this consolidation of power, any individual
poeiessing popular talents, and choosing to avail himself
of this patronage, must become a formidable character.
T.,ese were some of the grounds on which he opposed this
Pell, which threw an immense weight of patronage into
the hands of his Majesty's Ministers, or rather into those
of one Member of the Gos anment, which he thought
was wholy inconsistent with the Constitution. His No-
-1:00 and Learned Friend was anxious to divest the Bill of
this character ; he turned the matter over in his mind as
to where thi patr.--age should be vested ; but at last be
bound t. .at it could nowhere be vested with so much pro-
priety as in himself. Passing from this, however, their
Lordships would perhaps allow him to enter upon another
subject; he meant the Act of Parliament passed to regu•
late the fees of the Court over which be (Lord Lyndhurst)
presided, and that enabled him to speak of the expense ef
that establishment, which amounted altogether to about
35,000/. ; and he knew no reason why the other Courts
should be more expensive than his was, nor, indeed, was
he aware that they were. The whole expense of the three
superior Courts of Westminster Hall amounted to
100,000/., and this was the expense of administering the
ts hole body of civil and criminal law throughout this
great metropolis ; whereas the expense attendant upon
the plan of the Noble and Learned Lord would be
150,0001. Thus, by a system by which it was proposed
to transfer a part of those duties which were now
performed by the other Courts, one-half more expense
would be incurred than for the whole of the three
Courts in Westminster Hall. He appealed to what
had been stated by his Noble and Learned Friend, that
they ought not to consider money in this case; and if he
(Lord Lyndhurst) were sure that, by incurring an addi •
rional expense, they would improve.the administration of
justice, and that it would do good, be agreed that they
ought not to be too parsimonious ; but he felt that this
was a measure of doubtful policy. Nothing could be more
pernicious than the system of local Judges. It appeared
that by this Bill, however, there were to be four Judges
in the idea Riding of Yorkshire. Each Judge was to be
established in a narrow district, but was not to be confined
to one spot, but to go over his district, knowing as be
went every party, every witness, every • juryman who
might appear before him from time to time ; and thus his
•'eci&ons must be liable at least to an imputation of par.
tislity, if not of suspicion. It was a principle which had
existed formerly in that House that the system of Local
Courts was objectionable on account of the partiality
which it gave rise to ; and so strongly was the country
impressed at that time with the evils of local judicatures
and Judges that an Act of Parliament was passed with
great caution to prevent the Judges of Assize going the
Circuit where they had practised before as advocates. He
alluded to the Statute of Henry the Eighth, the preamble
..f which, after referring to previous Acts passed, set fortbn
e great injury which had arisen from the adininistriasttuiore
it justice by Local Courts. He said that the Legis
ed with the evils
it that period were not only imPr"
spot,
ot, and admi-
rising from the Judges residing taree°nbut when they went on
iiistering justice at their own door,
passed to prevent them
in occasional progress a sew was
houses or property.
ruin going where they p
d
But what was the groan of the repeal of that
? It was because, practically speaking, the
jt()gee never resided anywhere except in the me-
tropolis; or their residences were so casual that
woe of these inconveniences could arise. He said,

tb( e, that tire principle of the ancient law was,
that justice was not beneficially administered by moving
Courts. With reference to the Courts in Ireland a wide
mark of distinction was to be drawn as between them and
the superior Courts here. He maintained that the re-
moving of the Judges from the collisions to which they were
subject in Westminster Hall would lead to their becoming
incompetent to the office of Judges, from the absence of
that excitement which was necessary to the keeping up of
their acquirements and knowledge of the law; and in
confirmation of this fact the Noble and Learned Lord
proceeded to read an extract from a work of great cele-
brity, with which the Learned Lord now a Member o
his Majesty's Government was connected, and to which
the Noble and Learned Lord too had himself (unless he
was much belied) from time to time contributed. (The
passage was then read by the Noble Lord from tl e
Edinburgh Review to the effect that when a barrister was
removed to the office of a Judge he became unfit for the
office and lost his powers.) After some further observa-
tions, the Noble and Learned Lord observed that in the
appointment of the Judges of the superior Courts in
Westminster Hall there was little room for even the ails-
picion of partiality. They had great duties to perform,
their appointment was scrutinised by the eye of a vigilant
power, and no person would dare to wield his functions
improperly But would it be so with these provincial
establishments ? What had not been urged against the
4h Judges but that, the very nature of their appoint-
tea nts would give rise to mere Parliamentary jobbing ? It
had keen raid that it was monstrous to go into the superior
Courts cf Justice to recover small debts. He did not
dispute it ; but let them see what was the case ; let
their Lot dships consider the whole subject; let there
not take a partial view of it. One of the great object,
of the law was the prevention of litigation, and that
the law should be so preci-e that men should know their
rights ; and he would take upcn himself to say that
any man who bad been a witness to the working of the
sy-tem of this country must admit that it was transcen-
dently superior to that of every other country. A man
who went to his counsel knew what were his rights
almost to &certainty. except in complicated and rare in
stances ; and, therefore, to consider the system as one
which must be radically had because it was expensive
was, in his mind, to come to an unphilosophical and un-
just conclusion. Since he had last addressed their Loud-
ships he hail found a fact related by Professor Park, in
Which he stated that a gentleman at the bar, Mr. Preston,
had, in the course of 30 years' experience, given 40,000
opinions, and that not one in 30 of those opinions had
ever been made the subject of petition or appeal. Hi-
Noble and Learned Friend's case lay entirely in a fallacy,
and the fallacy was that persons could appeal in oeen and
bread cases of error ; but it was in the delicate and minute
cases mixed up of law and fact in which the mischief lay,
and in which appeals were most necessary. No appeal
under this Bill could reach this difficulty. His Noble
aim Learned Friend in speaking of the ancient Local
Courts had said that they admitted of appeals to the supe-
rior Courts of Westminster-hal:, by writs of false iudg-
went ; but this bad been found insufficient, and therefore
were they to be abolished and a new system established.
He had asked him (Lord Lyndhurst) whether he would
hive his assent to any alteration of the law with respect to
the recovery of debts or a small amount. To this he an-
swered that no person could be more anxious than himself
to effect that object. He Ltd co-operated in the other
House of Parliament with his Noble and Learned Friend
to effect this object, and he should be most happy to co-
operate with him for the same object now, and if he
embarked with his Noble and Learned Friend in such a
course,he could only say that he should be found to pursue
it with fairness and zeal. With respect to Ireland, the
each-tine jurisdiction was as different from that to be
found in the present Bill as it was possible for one thing to
be different from another. In the Irish Courts the twenty
pounds applied only to debts evinced by bonds, bills, and
notes, and in all other cases the jurisdiction fell greatly
below that sum. With respect to personal torts there was
no retreat beyond the Bill. In Ireland, so great had been
the inconvenience in the Assistant Barrister.' Courts, front
the circumstance of the assistant barristers going the same
circuit in which their courts were established, that at last
they were not allowed to go repeatedly into tire same
counties. No man who had studied the history of his
country could be ignorant that in all times of difficulties
the bar had been foremost in showing itself the most de-
cided opponents of oppression, and never did a poor indi-
vidual stand in need of assistance that be did not find a
voluntary advocate in that branch of the legal profession.
—(Hear, heir.) The r ffect of the present measure would
he to destroy all such conduct. His Learned and Vene-
rable Friend on the floor of the House (Lord Eldon), who
was so many years the ornament of his profession, his
Noble Friend on the opposite benches, and his Learned
Friend near 'him (Lord Wynford), had opposed this mea-
sure ; and when his Noble and Learned Friend on the
Woolsack recollected that his rivals, his opponents, and
his successful competitors who still remained at the bar
had likewise opposed it, he could not consider that he
(Lord Lyndhurst) was prestrowuous or disrespectful to
him in offering it his opposition. He should receive from
him his weed of praise as far as his humble powers en-
abled him to express hiosself, but yet he must confess that
he disapproved of the system of detaching the law pro-
ceedings from the courts in Westminster Hall.----(Hear,
hear.) His Noble and Learned Friend miscalculated the
effect of the measure ; for, according to the returns
which he had received from several circuits which he
had gone iu the last two ytars, these Local Courts
would take more than one-half of the ordinary busi-
ness from the circuits: He would likewise refer to the
Report of the Law Commissioners which was on their
Lordships' table, which stated that one half of the Circuit
business would he transfi rred to the Local Courts. This
was not all; for there would be a necessity to detach a
number of professional counsel to attend specially these
Local Courts ; and the general effects on the Bar might
be easily ascertained. To another branch of the profession,
the attorneys, the Bill would be perfectly destructive.
The object of the Bill professed to be that law should be
administered to the people on the cheapest possible scale.
His Noble and Learned Friend, however, had not affixed
to this Bill any table or schedule of fees. He had pressed
him over and over again on the subject, and he wl4 told
that it was the main point of difficulty. He (Lord Lynd-
hurst) had looked to his Noble Friend's scale ce fees at-
tached to his former Bill, and all lie could say was, that, if
any similar scale were to be adopted now, the result would
he that no man of any education or respectability would
attend to transact business in the Local Courts, and they
would be left to the lowest practitioners of the law.--
(Hear, hear, hear.) He had taken occasion on a former
night to state what had been the effect of establishing a
similar system in another country. He had alluded to
America, and he would now refer to France. An eminent
author of the highest authority- in the latter country,
having described the bad effects of the system in the
strongest terms, concluded by saying " never had tile
French people a less respectable Magistracy ; little law
was studied, and before such Judges the science
would be rather prejudicial than useful. Learning
was altogether as rare at the Bar as at the Bench,
and the object of Counsel was to conciliate the Judge
despite thee', science of the law." Judge Hall had been
an advocate for the establishment of small debt Courts,
upon a certain plan, and to the limited amount of 5/. ;
but he had added that the greatest danger imaginable in
establishing the small debt Courts was that they might
lead to the erection of country judicatures contravening
law, and producing the most pernicious system imagina-
ble : the five pounds might in time be raised to 501.,
and the Courts in Westminster Hail be destroyed. It had
been said by his Noble Friend who had commenced this
debate that this Bill had been properly called the Poor
Man's Bill. Not a morning did lie sit down to his break-
fast that be did not find the same doctrine held in a cer-
tain document which it was not necessary for him to men-
tion.—(A laugh.) In fac,, there never was a Bill lirao the
poor man's Bill than the present measure. It would en.
able the man possessed of property to obtain judetnent
ate! execution, and to seize the property of the poor man,
to sell it, and turn him into the street, in the course tf
six weeks.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It was a Bill to op
press the poor, • and to put the pow debtor en.
irely at , the mercy of the rich creditor. Sir John
Cross had been examined by the commissioners with
respect to this Bill, and had stated that its effect would be
to enable the creditor to seize his debtor's property ill ex-
ecution directly payment was withheld. This wi,ness had
stated that where great facilities were given tc the poor to
contract debts,' shopkeepers allowed them to run till ac-
counts to a certain point, and then perhaps took out, to one
day, from twenty fo thirty summonses against their e us-
towers. This was a class of cases that grew up from
the existence of the small courts. But would the poor
be witnesses in these courts ? No; the witnesses would
be the tradesmen, shopkeepers, and hankers. One per-
son priiclaimed that nothing could be more horrible than
the existing law between debtor and creditor, and that
the creditor ought to have full power over his debtor ;
another pereon declared that there never had been a syy
tern so abominable as that of the Inaolvent Act that had
been passed of late years; but let persons take what view
of the subject they liked, be thought few would agree to
call the present Bill the Poor Man's Bill. He would
now direct the attention of -their Lordships to the provi-
,io" of the Bill, anerely observing that it was the re-
sult of five years of study, which his Noble Fri rel On
the Woolsack had given to the subject. He would say 1

nothing about the 201., but the Bill would absorb al
cases of a personal nature, and every case of a personal
tort would he taken from the superior courts, for where
damages were uncertain and dependent on the will and
humour of a jury, no man would venture to bring his
action in a superior court on the chance of recovering
more than this sum and obtaining a judges's certificate.
He had looked at the cases of personal tort and those
below 501., and they exceeded the others in the pro.
portion of twelve or fourteen to one ; and the effect of
this Bill would he to take the whole of such cases out
of the superior courts, and to transfer them to the local
courts in small districts, in which, before the day of
trial, the whole of the cases would be discussed by those who
had afterwards to decide upon them. The Bill allowe I
that the defendant might remove the cause into a higher
Court ; but on what terms ? Only upon his giving se-
curity for the damages and costs. The wealthy man
might give security, but the poor man could not ; and
yet this was to be called the poor man's Bill. Was the
House to be taunted, and were their Lordships to be
supposed, that they were so destitute of understanding as
to think that the provisions of the Bill were in favour of
the poor ? His Noble and Learned Friend had said that
the Bill followed closely the report of the Commissioners;
but the fact was the very reverse, for the extent of the
recommendation of the Commissioners was only 201.,
and the Bill carried the amount to 59/., and the Noble
Lord's former Bill carried the jurisdiction to 1001., which
would take twenty-nine out of thirty parts of the business
of the superior Courts. A man might go into a superior
Court with a just demand, but by some accident, such as
the absence of a witness, he might not recover his full
sum, and yet by this Bill he would be mulcted of his
whole costs. He could recollect cases of great import.
ance in which the sums recovered did not exceed a few
pounds. Questions of assurance or of accounts might be
tried involving principle anti points of considerable im-
portance between merchants, and yet the sum in dispute
might be only ten pounds, and could it be tolerated that
such cases were to be tried in Local Courts ? The Bill
in fact deviated entirely from the recommendation of the
Commissioners. And now with respect to the venue.
His Noble Friend selected the residence of the defendant,
provided one of the plaintiffs resided in the same dis-
trict, as the locality of trying the action ; but the parties
might probably live at the extremities of the kingdom,
and still, under this cheap system, the witnesses were to
be removed to the place of trial. After his Nale and}
Learned Friend bad spent five years of his life on this
13,11, their Lordships were to be told that they must
adopt it as a specimen of sound legislation. No provision
for a new trial was made except where any mistake Was
made in a point of law, or where the party had not been
personally served with process. Every man who knew
any thing of Courts of Justice knew that juries, from pre-
judices, partialities, or private feeling, often gave verdicts
contrary to evidence, and in opposition to the advice of the
Judges. The Court under this Bill might be sensible of
this and yet unable to afford redress. An action might
be brought against a man for scandal, the information
tried, the defendant might justify arid acknowledge the
slander, and declare that what he had said was true. The
jury might find for the defendant contrary to evidence and
contrary to the charge of the Judge, and the stain of in-
famy might he fixed on an honest man without any
power of reversing the proceeding.—(Hear.) Suppose a
case of debt to occur between parties residing at Liverpool
and in the metropolis. Was either party to bring his
witnesses that distance on a dispute of 101. ? Would not
this amount to an intolerable vexation? He had been in.
formed that it was the Noble Lord's intention to abandon
the nineteenth clause; but this did not appear to be
the case, and the principle of the Jury was to he got
rid of as a troublesome and cumbrous piece of machi-
nery. Such was the plan emanating from the Whig
party of the country. The more the number of the Jury
was diminished, the more would the power of the
Judge be increased. Was it right ha cases of importance
involving property and character, that a Judge and
only six Jurymen should have the exclusive jurisdiction
without review except in cases of gross error ? This was
only a sma I part of the evil. How were juries to be sum-
montd ?—(Hear, hear.) Mark the Bill in this respect.
In all former cases the greatest caution was exercised in
summoning a jury. The Judge was very properly allowed
to have nothing to do with this. The jury was summoned
by the Sheriff, and when the Judge came to try the case,
he knew nothing of the jury. In the present Bill the pro-
vision on this point moat widely differed. Whom did the
House suppose was intrusted with summoning the jury ?
Why the Registrar, the travelling companion of the
Judge.—(Cheers. 1 If the Judge were to summon the
jury, he would at least be a responsible peason, but to let
the jury be summoned by the irresponsible Registrar who
travelled with the Judge, was something so nionstreas that
he had no apprehensions that the House would accede to
it; but, on the contrary, he was astonished that it ever
could have been proposed. The jurymen were to be taken
from the place moat convenient to the residence of the de-
fendant, and the poor man might go into the Court of
Justice to get cheap justice as he could, but the rich man
might avoid the trial by the neighbouring jury, provided
he could only give security for the costs. Then it was
provided that appeals should be allowed on the agreement
of the Counsel of the contending parties, and that if they
disagreed the Judge should decide. Why the Counsel
were sure to disagree, and then the Judge was to settle a
point which involved his own decision —(Hear.) His
Learned Friend replied that this was now the case in West-
minster Hall; but in Westminster Hall there was a vigi-
lant enlightened bar, and other cheeks, and the pasties
were not obliged to move for a new trial. A bill of ex.
ceptions might be tendered, making the Judge state the
law he had pronounced. There was no an ilogy between
the established usage and the proposed Bill. He could
point out many more objections, but the House might
take what he had produced as a sample of the whole.
Lord Somers had said that the business of a Reformer was
to see that in correcting one disease he did not introduce
some other evil, and that with the inconvenience to he re-
moved he did not remove some convenience which the
former constitution bad provided. This was the true
spirit of reform. After the description he had given of
the Bill he asked if the House would t dee the course
which was pressed upon it ? He had now discharged the
duty he owed to their Lordships; he had discharged the
duty he owed to himself and to the profession to which lie i
had the honour to belong ; he had stated the reason why
he should vote against the Bill. He had no personal
enmity to answer, and no private motives whatever to
gratify. In the decision of that House he should most
cheerfully acquiesce, and he should now beg leave to
declare his sentiments in favour of the amendment pro-
posed.—(Cheers.)
Lord PLUNKETT could not egree with the sentiments
expressed by the Noble and Learned Lord in the able,
eloquent, and masterly speech which they had just heard.
Their Lordships could not think that he was able to
answer the Noble and Learned Lord, or to follow him
through the great variety of matters on which he had
enlarged. It neither suited his place nor the scope of his
information to do so ; nor should he have addressed their
Lordships, but for the direct appeal which had been made
to him. A great proportion of the argument had been
employed, not in the discussion of this particular Bill,
nor on the question of the patronage of the Crown, hut on
the general patronage of the Lord Chancellor. if that
speech was applicable to the subject at all, it was appli-
cable rather in the way of objection to the office of Chan-
cellor than to the constitution of the Local Courts. Some
observations bad also been made en the patronage of the
Lord Chancellor as to judicial situations, and as to the
Church. If he did not believe that those observations had
been as sincere as he thought them mistaken, he should
treat them very differently from the way in which he now
meant to deal with them. Time Noble Lerd then alluded
to the remarks made by the Noble and Learned Lord
(Lyndhurst), on his (Lord Plunkett's) opposition to a Bill
brought in by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Wynford)
for the improvement of the practice in Courts of Justice.
That Bill was totally different from the present, and its
objects were d fferent. It went not to the establishment
of Local Courts, but to the improvement of the Courts of
Westminster, and had been opposed by him because he

thought it would interfere with the practice of those
Courts without doing effectually the good intended. With
regard to the Bill befort, their Lordships, it had been
called anomalous, and objected to as interfering with the
ancient practice of the kingdom. Ibat might be a good
argini:_nt, if their Lord,hips, in legislating for the coun-
try, were to look not to the actual state of the country at
present, and what it now required, but to its state at
former periods of our history. He would, however,
remind their Lordships, that the former state of the coun-
try rested on a system of local jwiimiturc,, and that the
venerable system of the Courts of Westminster Hall, so
highly lauded by the Noble Lord, and in the praises of
which he (Lord Pluukett) joined, was an improvement on
those Local Courts.—(llear, hear.) Did he (Lord P.)
say, that our ancestors were wrong in making that
change, or that they ought to have gone back to
those local jurisdictions ? No; he said that those
philosophical persons were right in making the change,
and in not adhering to the old institution., when
their use had passed away; and that they were
entitled to suit them to the times in Which
they lived.—(Hear, hear.) But on the same prin-
ciple the present generation had a right to eking.: the
courts of Westminster Hall, when they were no longer
found suitable, as our ancestors had the right of iustit tying