The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-13 00:00:00

the deepest and most vital importance to the national
prosperity as perfect as it can possibly be, and to re-
move the dangers that may arise from
any crude or hasty legislation. Nothing
could be more distinct or explicit than
what fell from the Noble and Learned Lord on
the occasion. He expressly declared that "he did
not propose this Committee with the slightest inten-
tion of delaying the measureo,for if he found that
there was any intention of the kind he would at once
move that the Chairman report progress. And he
gave this notice to whoever might intend to vote for
delay in the Select Committee, that he would be the
first to meet that attempt at delay, by moving that
the Chairman report progress, and then let the House
deal with the Bill in the best way it could." After such
a statement every possible doubt as to the motives of
the Noble and Learned Lord must be completely re-
moved, who has thu", to use his own words, afforded
the strongest possible " guarantee to the public that
the measure would not be delayed longer than was ab-
solutely necessary to its efficiency."
Three important alterations were suggested by the
Noble Lord in the provisions of the Bill, as sane•
tinned by the representative branch of the Legisla-
ture. These alterations, which he had previously
given notice of moving as amendments to the Bill in
Committee, were similar to the provisions which he
had brought forward in 1833 :—First, to give parties
the option of going either before the superior or the
county courts in cases where the amount was be-
tween 201. and 50/. ; secondly, to give powers of ap-
peal on points of law ; and thirdly, to create in
certain cases a concurrent jurisdiction.
With respect to the first point, if both parties
should agree in having their differences adjudicated
upon by the higher tribunal, it is exceedingly desirable
that they should be at liberty to do so, and
that not only where the sum in dispute exceeded
201., but in all cases whatsoever. Questions of vast
importance, where the real point at issue may
amount to many thousands of pounds sterling, may
nominally be for the recovery of only a few shillings
Thousands of similar cases may depend on the result
of the first decision, and it would be manifestly unjust
to compel the parties to abide by the decision of the
county court judge, unaided by the arguments of
competent and well-qualified barristers, and with the
risk of conflicting judgments, a contingency which,
to say the least of it, would be by no means improbable.
If, however, the plaintiff in the suit were allowed
the option, at his own mere will and pleasure, and
without assigning any satisfactory reasons for the
selection he might make, it would completely do
away with the efficacy of the Bill, and render it
practically worse than useless—an instrument of op-
pression and persecution, in place of a mode of
cheap and expeditious justice
We have already fully explained our views with
respect to the proposed "right of appeal." The country
requires " cheap law," but not " bad law." In strongly
contested cases neither party will be satisfied with
the decision of the county court judge. He will
believe that if he had the power of appealing to a
superior tribunal the result would be very different,
and he will thus become discontented and dissatisfied
with the state of the law under which what he, at
least, believed to be deep injustice had been perpe-
trated. Such an opinion is very dangerous, and
shoted by no means be encouraged, and every
reasonable precaution should be taken to prevent
the possibility of its being formed. Care
should, of course, be taken to prevent the
privilege from being strained from its legitimate ob-
ject, by being resorted to merely for the sake of delay
and annoyance to the creditor. But this danger
would be completely removed either by giving the
right solely on condition of the full amount of debt
and costs being lodged in court, or at least being
amply secured in the event of the original judgment
being affirmed; or by granting the appeal only by
leave of the Court, and on such conditions as the
judge should determine.
This privilege, so far from deteriorating the
character of the inferior tribunals, would, in fact
afford the best guarantee for their efficiency. Al

though there might not be a single appeal out of
each hundred cases, the very knowledge that such
was practicable would induce the judge to bestow
full care and mature consideration upon every deci-

sion. He would avoid anything approximating to a
crude, or hasty, or petulant judgment, when assured
that it might be reviewed in Westminster Hall and in
the presence of his professional brethren. Every indh-
cretion would be carefully avoided, and the character of
the courts would be materially raised as well from the
adlitional pains bestowed by the judges as that it
would prevent the possibility of any unfair or uu-

warranted imputations being cast upon these learned

gentlemen by dissatisfied litigants. And, surely,
when a power of appeal is given from the most

eminent members of the judicial bench, it cannot be

considered an indignity to the inferior judges if
their decisions should be subjected to a similar

_
scrutiny.
As to the concurrent jurisdiction, we confess that we
have grave doubts of its propriety, and we fear that it
would prove destructive to the salutary effects of the

measure. If the plaintiff, or rather the plaintiff's

attorney, should be enabled to select the scene of
the litigation, he would still resort to the superior

courts for the purpose of swelling the costs, orcora-
pelling the defendant to submit to extortionate de-

mands from a reasonable dread of the expense of re-

si3ting them. Besides, the power of appeal, within
judicious limits, would completely remove any neces-

sicy for such a concurrent jurisdiction.

What motive except an undue and exaggerated
fear of the power of the Pharisees should prevent Lord
JOHN RUSSELL from at once res'oring to us our Post-
office delivery on Sunday it is hard to imagine. The
answer of the Noble Lord last evening to the ques-
tion put to him by Mr. SPOONER proves that the
proposed inquiry need not stand in the way of the
immediate restoration of the regime of common sense
in respect to this matter. It appears, from the re-
port of the proceedings in the House of Commons
last evening, that Mr. SPOONER asked the Noble Lord
at the bead of the Government whether it was the
intention of her MAJESTY'S Government to lay be-
fore Parliament the report of the Commissioners ap •
pointed to inquire into the working of the Post-office
regulations respecting Sunday labour, together
with the evidence taken before those Commis-
sioners ; also, whether permission would be
given to any parties who might require
it, to produce evidence before such Commissioners;
to which Lord Jour; RUSSELL replied "that he had no
objection that the report of the gentlemen appointed
to inquire into this subject should be laid on the
table of the House as soon as it was made. He did
not know that it would be necessary for the Commit-
tee to take any evidence further than that of a docu-
mentary character. He did not see anything in the
address of that
House which required that fresh evi
deuce should be taken,
and he did not propose that the
Committee should receive evidence."
If the Commissioners are not to receive evidence,
where can be the necessity for the delay of which the
Marquis of CLANRICARDE talked in his reply to one
during the
with
ever
of the deputations which waited on him
course of the week ? The documents are, and
; andith
have been, in the possession of the Government
their contents the Marquis of CLArtalcartr•
Lord JOHN RUSSELL are no doubt well ac-
quainted, and they are just as competent to
decide the question as the Commissioners ; all that
is wanted is a little pressure, and we again urge
upon any individual who feels himself aggrieved to
make known his grievance by letter to the Prime
Minister. Let us once set the voting power in motion,
and we shall find no greater difficulty in preventing
the Minister from giving effect to the mad schemes of
the Sabbatarians than we did, two years since, in pre-
venting him from increasing the income-tax. Every
day brings additional proof of the inconvtence
inflicted on individuals and the public by this most
mischievously absurd attempt to stop all socialinter-
course by letter on Sunday ; not only does it torture
the best affections by its cruel interference in pre-
venting the communication between parents and
children, not only does it tend to the ruin of the mer-
chant and tradesman by obstructing his communications
with his banker or his agent, but it absolutely stops
the progress of legislation. In the course of the dis-
cussion on the County Courts Bill, in the House of
Peers last evening, Lord BROUGHAM stated, as a
reason for postponing the progress of the measure,
that "a Noble andiLeaxned Friend of his (Lord Das-