The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-29 00:00:00

from Stafford and Yorkshire for a repeal of the Sale of Beer
Act, and for the better observance of the Sabbath.
Earl GREY, in answer to questions of the Dukes of
CUMBERLAND and BUCKINGHAM, said that he could not,
till the Irish Coercion Bill had passed through all its stages
and had become the law of the land, state when the House
would rise for the holydays. He could not, either, in that
state of the public business, say how long the recess would
last, but feared it would he a short one._

LOCAL JUDICATURES.
The LORD CHANCELLOR rose for the purpose of
submitting to their Lordships a Bill for establishing local
jurisdictions in England and Wales, similar in principle
and in the majority of its provisions to that submitted by
him on two former occasions. He would then confine
himself to a brief outline of its leading features and pro-
visions, reserving himself till the second reading stage for
a full explanation of its principles and details. Its object
was the establishing, as it were, but experimentally in
certain districts and counties, but ultimately in all the
counties and districts, after its advantages shall have
been proved in the experimental districts, local juris-
dictions, for the purpose of facilitating the admi-
nistration of justice,—and not only facilitating, but bring-
ing it home to the door and placing it within the pecu-
niary reach of every subject in the kingdom. These local
jurisdictions would b, so many courts over which a ser-
eeant-at-law, or a barrister of not less than ten years'
standing, should be appointed to preside as judge,—care
being taken that those judges shall be men able and ex-
perienced in the law, and of so high a character, moral
and protessional, that the King's subj- cts should have con-
fidence in their decision. The question then came, what
was the kind and amount of jurisdiction which these local
judges shoul I exercise? He proposed to give them a power
to dispose of cases of debt, and hose cases of wrongs which
were called actions of tort, in which the redress was pecu-
niary damages. The question next was, to what suns of
debt or damage he would limit the jurisdiction of the new
courts ? In his former Bill he proposed that the judges
should take cognizance of all actions for debt where the
sum did not exceed 100/., but after much consideration,
and frequent communication with the common law com-
missioners, he was induced to make 201. the maximum
sum, at least for the present, which should be brought, as
a matter of course, before the local judges. He admitted
this was a great restriction, but he trusted that the
other provisions of the Bill would do much towards
securing the parties-in-debt actions the prompt and
economical decisions of the local courts. It was to be under-
stood that the 201. was a compulsory provision—that is,
that the plaintiff in a cause to that arnoun should possess
the power of bringing it before the local judges, even
though the defendant should not be a willing party. Ano•
ther provision, which he would advert to immediately,
give the parties in these debt and tort actions, and, in-
deed, in all actions, the power of submitting themselves
to the local tribunal, on both agreeing—treat is, on the
mutual consent of the plaintiff and defendant to that pur-
pose. Well, 201. was the debt compulsory maximum ;
then the question was, what should be the amount of ac-
tions for damages which the local judicature should, in the
ordinary exercise of their functii.ns, take cognizance of.
He proposed that the maximum in this case should be
501. damages ; that is, cases in which the damages should
be laid at or under SOL, it being well known t at prac-
tically no jury, for reasons which he would not then stop
to specify, ever gave damages equal to the amount lai i in
the declaration ; so that, in point of fact, the damage
maximum, secured, as it would be by the other provisions
of the Bill, would be, as in the actions for debt, actually
201. Briefly, then, all actions for debt and damages
under 201. would be tried and decided in these local judi-
catures. Their Lordships, perhaps, were not aware of the
great amount of the actions for hums not exceeding 20/.,
--that is, of tlie great relative proportion which they
bore to the aggregate amount of actions tried in the
courts of common law.—(Hear.) This great relative
proportion would appear obvious to them when he
stated, that out of 93,000 affidavits of debt made
in the year 1826 (the last of which be possessed a re-
turn) in the three courts of common law in Westminster-
ball, not less than 30,000, or about 1•31, were for sums
under 20/. ; 18,000 for sums under 50/ ; and the re-
maining 15,000 for sums above 501. Again, out of 890
suits, tried in London and Middlesex in 1830, not less
than 330, or more than 1-3 d, were for sums under 201. ;
while in the country, judging by the returns from the
Oxford circuit for the same year, the proportion was trill
greater, there being not less than 160 out of 340 causes
fur sums under 201. tried in that circuit. He bad stated
that the jurisdiction in cases for 20/. would be compul-
sory. He proposed, that when the plaintiff and defendant
both consented, all actions, without restriction of amount
at issue, might be disposed of by tne local judges. He
expected much better results from the provision than could
appear on the surface at a first blush. Another provi-
sion, which he also expt-c•ed would work advanta-
geously, was that which would enable eitl.er patty in
an action for debt to compel the other to answer upon oath
as to the facts of the case : by this summary arrangement
all the advantages of the roundabout, tedious, and expen-
sive process of filing a bill of discovery would be secured
at a cheap rate and promptly. There was another pro-
vision of this Bill to which he had on a former occasion
specially invited their attention—he meant that which
would invest the local judges with an arbitrary power; in
feet, invest the local courts with the character of courts of
reconcilement. Noble Lords could not readily believe the
advantages which had accrued from this admirable prac-
tice in those counties in which it had had a fair trial. By
the judges—persons eminently competent from education,
professional habits, and standing—pointing out to the
parties the real grounds of an action—the right and the
wrong, they not only saved the necessity of endless litiga-
tion, but vindicated the high character of the profession
from all imputation of interestedness and professional dis-
ingenuousness. In France these courts of arbitration had
been tried, not, he was bound to state, with such xtensive
results as in Belgium, and ;at- less than in Denmark and
Norway. Tois reconciling practice was first adopted in
Denmark in 1795: in the following year the causes were re-
duced no: less than two-thirds—that is, but one-third was
not disposed of without going into court, by arbitration on
the part of the judges. He hail on a former occasion quoted
the returns of two periods of nine years each, in order to
place the beneficial workings of this reconciling practice in
a strong light to their Lordships. In the earlier period not
leas than 448,000 out of 724,000 cases were so disposed
of ; while in the later period—in that eliding in 1822
not less than 21,000 out of a total of 31,000 (that is
2-3ds) cases were so settled, without the expense and
delay of formal litigation. The next prov sion related to
the equity jurisdiction with which he proposed to invest
the local Judges. In his former Bill be extended this
equity jurisdiction to wills and legacies as well as matters
of hankruptcy ; but though his own conviction was un
altered, he thought it better to omit it in the present, the
rather as it might be more advantageously made the sub-
ject matter of a special measure. lie proposed, then, in the
present Bill, that the local Judges shall be to all intents and
purposes local Masters in Chancery and local Commis-
sioners of bankrupts—that is, that they shall in their
several jurisdictions and localities exercise all the func-
tions which appertain to the office of Master in Chan-
cery, and which appertain to the office of Bankruptcy
Judge in the new Bankruptcy Courts, which had, he was
proud to say, produced the best results, and were held
in strong esteem by the mercantile world. Of course
local official assignees should also be appointed, in order
to make the bankruptcy jurisdiction of the local courts as
efficient as it was universally admitted to he in London.
The last object which he had in view in drawing up the
present Bill was also very important. It proposed to re-
lieve debtors who had gone through their examination,
and made a satisfactory disclosure of the whale state of
their affairs, from imprisonment. In this respect the BM
would be an apt precursor to one which be understood
was about to be introduced in the other House of Parlia-
ment, which was also founded on the recommendations of
the common law commissioners, and which would go the
length of abolishing imprisonment fur debt altogether.
The want of proper measures to obtain full and ac-
curate information respecting the property of debtors
was severely felt. This want was intended also to be
supplied by the Bill he had the honour to submit to
the House. Its application would be general, as far as it
was practicable to be so, and it was thought that it
could, with very little alteration, be applied to almost
every case which might occur. He thought that the prin-
ciple of not allowing the arrest of a debtor under any pre-
tences except those of refusing to answer que-tions relating
to the disposal of his property, or of refusing to surrender
it, was just and incontrovertible. Indeed,. in no case
in his (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion, except under cir-
cumstances in which property had been fraudulently ob-
tained, or negligently managed,—in short, in no case
egc• pt where contumacy or criminality could be shown,
ought any debtor to be detained. Such he believed to be
the opinion, too, of all who bad paid attention to the
subject. With regard to this part of the measure, be had
to repeat that it was based on the recommendations con-
tained in the repert of the Common L .w Commissioners,
shit in drawing it up every regard bad been paid to
imparting to creditors every security which it was possible
to extend to them. In fact, its provisions would be of
greater benefit to creditors than of advantage to debtors,
and he had no doubt that when the measure came to b
fully discussed by the Legislature, it would surely be
adopted. It would be innposiiible, he thought, to achieve
the objects to which be had stated the Bill bad re-