The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-10 00:00:00

TO WILLIAM HAWES, ESQ.. CHAIRMAN OF
THE LONDON COMMITTEE ON THE LAW
OF DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.
Dear Sir,—lt is with reluctance that I address
you throughthe press, but your report, with its nume-
rous errors, is now in the hands of the public, who
cannot be undeceived by any private explanations I
may offer to you, though I know that such explana-
tions would be received with candour.
Had I possessed the opportunity, I should have
muchrpreferred (to the unpleasant task of stricture
and refutation) the less invidious one of pointing out
to you the danger of giving your sanction to the
hacknied sophistries of interested classes ; sophis-
tries, to which for a few weeks you have. given cur-
rency and undue weight, at the expense, however, of
the influence your committee previously possessed
with the commercial classes of England and Wales.
Respect and good will towards yourself and your
colleagues, may not be inconsistent with a want of'
unreserved confidence on my part in the influence
by which you are surrounded.
The city of London has a high reputation for in-
telligence. But it does not enjoy any peculiar
exemption from the control of sinister interests.
Hence it may sometimes happen that the acts of its
citizens will be received by the rest of their fellow-
subjects as "a warning rather than as an example."
Where shall we find united all those classes who
possess the strongest personal interest against the
establishment of cheap local courts, rendering justice
accessible to the whole country, and enabling the
humblest man to plead his own case without profes-
sional aid or assistance ? All well-informed persons
will answer —in the metropolis of London. In London
the members of the bar reside ; there they are inti-
mately connected with the inhabitants by the ties of
friendship and business ; there they possess the power
of infusing into the minds of all classes--more es-
pecially of the highest and most intelligent (as with
those classes they habitually associate)—their preju-
dices and antipathies against a new jurisdiction so ad-
verse to their personal prospects.
If you, or any member of your committee, has
business of a legal nature to be transacted, from
whom will he seek advice ? In the ordinary nature
of affairs he will consult a London solicitor. Pro-
bably there are none of you who do not habitually
employ some eminent solicitor, with whom you are
in frequent intercourse, and in whom you confide, not
merely as a professional adviser, but also as a personal
friend.
Further, how large a portion of the merchants and
commercial men of the metropolis have near relations
among the members of the bar, or the London solici-
tors, or both ?
Now there is no class of men more deeply ides
rested in opposing the extension of the County Courts
than the London solicitors. One of the chief sources
of the extravagant expense of actions in the superior
courts is the necessity which at present exists of car-
rying on all the preliminary stages through the me-
dium of a London attorney-at-law whatever distance
from London the suitor may reside.
I should be the last person to say anything harsh
or unkind towards either the bar or the London solici-
tors. Among both classes are many excellent men,
and among both are many of my oldest and most es-
teemed friends.
Nor do I condemn-'-your report because it is
founded on interes tea. issiormation,_ buLbecause it is
based on partial end one-sided information. lied
you collected facts from both sides, your report
!night have given different views of the County
Courts from those it contains, or it might not have
appeared at all.
London abounds in eminent banisters and solici-
tors. It also contains many men of the highest
eminence associated with the County Courts. I may
mention, for example, one of the judges—Mr. Amos
—who, as a learned and philosophical j urist, is probably
superior to any Englishman now living. He filled
for some time the high office of Comaii",sioner for re-
vising the laws of India. He has lately written an
admirable work on the County. Courts. His advice
would have been useful to you, and from his courtesy,
kindness, and public spirit, I doubt not he would
have given you any aid in his power. His views
differ widely from those of your report.
When you come to review facts calmly, you will
scarcely fail, as I believe, to repudiate the sentiments
of your report.
Look to the results of the County Courts. Is there
any other tribunal in this country in which the plain-
tiffs, in the vast majority of cases that come to a
hearing, eventually receive back every farthing of
their debts with costs.
These results are, in my judgment, in a great mea-
sure ascribable to the system of instalments which
you (from want of adequate inquiry) condemn. It is
the successful operation of, that very system, after a
trial of three years, which, in my opinion, causes the
business of the County Courts to continue so large
and extensive, in this the fourth year since they were
opened.
The reason for the results alluded to is plain and
simple. , Defendants liable to immediate execution
commonly become desperate and vindictive, abscond
or make away with their goods, or both. On the
other hand the same men when sued in the County
Court will trust to the discretion of the judge, and
when they succeed in obtaining time, will nearly
always fulfil the conditions imposed.
As regards the principle of instalments, cases above
20/. du not differ from those below 201. I believe that
that the majority of cases up to 50/. (that are tried at
all in my circuit) are tried in the County Court
already, and not at the assizes, as in such cases the
plaintiffs commonly prefer sacrificing the difference
to suing in the superior courts. During my last
circuit I tried a case on a bill of exchange for as much
as 601. (the plaintiff having given up 401.).
lodiscriminately harsh laws towards debtora
do not benefit the careful capitalist, but speculative
men of straw, carrying on a rival trade, and who will
trust men that a prudent man would not, relying on
the precarious influence of intimidation to get back
their claims from debtors or their friends.
How often does it happen that a wholesale dealer
supplies goods to an irregular or unsafe customer,
except through a'wilful spirit of speculation, and in
violation of plain warnings ?
Are not the instances in which the wholesale
dealer quite unexpectedly finds irregularity in pay-
ment on the part, of a customer nearly always cases
of misfortune which you admit should be protected ?
But the practice of instalments is not a necessary
part of the system of County Courts, though accom-
panied as it is by a power of imprisonment for fraud
(and for non-payment by debtors who possess present
means). I believe it to be one of the greatest benefits
that ever was conferred on the creditor.
The principle of local courts, demonstrated by
Bentham, and eloquently advocated by his great dis-
ciple, Lord Brougham, cannot be subverted or shaken
by such document as that to which you have affixed
your name.
All the objections so industriously collected in that
report are not objections to the principle, but to the
imperfect manner in which that principle has been
carried out.
For example, the costs of "the County Courts are a
deviation from Bentham's views, who condemned all
"taxes on justice."
Still, if, even when burdened with court, fees these
courts are practically cheaper than any other tribu-
nals, does not this render the success of the experi-
ment more conspicuous than it would have been if
tried without a disadvantage not contemplated by the
great writer alluded to ?
Can you conceive a more conclusive reason for ex-
tending their jurisdiction ?
As 1 have repeatedly pointed out, if the system is
to be self-supporting it is quite monstrous that it
should be coufined within its present limits, when by
enlarging the jurisdiction new and more liberal
sources of support may be opened, which will lighten
the burdens of the present suitors, and at the same
time afford cheap and accessible means of legal re-
dress to other classes of society.
To confine local courts to sums under 201. formed
no part of the plans of Bentham, or of Lord
Brougham, whose views embraced a high compulsory
jurisdiction, combined with a jurisdiction to an un-
limited amount in cases in, which the parties may
mutually consent to abide by the decision of a judge
of the County Courts.