The Sun.
London, England, 1829-06-26 00:00:00

ACTIONS.

We have now to advert to the subject of Pre-
scription, and the Limitation of Actions for the
recovery of Real Property. It might at first
sight be considered, that the duration of wrong
ought not to give it a sanction, and that the long
suffering of injury should be no bar to the ob-
taining of right when demanded. But human,
affairs must be conducted on other principles.
It is found to be of the greatest importance, to
promote peace, by affixing a period to the right
of disturbing possession. Experience teaches
us, that owing to the perishable nature of all
evidence, the truth cannot be ascertained on any
contested question of fact after a considerable
lapse of time. The temptation to introduce
false evidence grows with the difficulty of de-
tecting it ; and, at last, long possession affords
the proof, the most safely to be relied upon, of
the right of property. Independently of the
question of right, the disturbance of property
after long enjoyment is mischievous. It is ac-
cordingly found both reasonable and useful that
enjoyment for a certain period of time against all
claimants should be considered conclusive evi-
dence of title.
This period should be so fixed as to give
ample opportunity to assert just rights, and yet
not to countenance claims which have been long
dormant. It will be found that different kins
of property, as Land and Advowsons, will re-
quire different periods of limitation. But there
seems no reason why there should not be for
each kind of property one uniform period of
limitation, depending upon the length of adverse
enjoyment, and not upon the form of the remedy
selected by the claimant, or upon any act of the
party in possession for the purpose of abridging it.
On this subject the law of England is very
unsystematic and very defective. At common
law there was no period of limitation except a
year and a day after a recovery in certain real
actions ; and the statutes which have been passed
to create or to vary the periods of limitation have
had no regard to uniformity or consistency, and
have laid down rules which do not depend upon
the nature of the right to be acquired or de-
fended, but upon a number of technical distinc-
tions, with reference to which a confused and
unprofitable variety of remedies is afforded to the
claimant ; or upon the secret act of the party in

possession.
The existing periods of limitation chiefly de-
pend upon 32 Hen. VIII., c. 2, 21 Jac. I. c.
16, and 4 Hen. VII. c. 24, together with the
rules laid down by Courts of Justice respecting
legal memory and presumption.
By 32 Hen. VIII. c. 2, a writ of right on the
seisin of an ancestor, to which till then there was
no limit, except the reign of Richard 1., was
confined to sixty years, and a possessory action
on the seisin of an ancestor to fifty years ; and
no real action, droitural or possessory, could be
maintained by any person on his own seisin after
a lapse of thirty years. Formedons in reverter
or remainder were required to be used within
fifty years ; and it was enacted, that no avowry or
cognizance should be made for any rent or ser-
vice after fifty years from the seisin of an ancestor
or any other person.
The statute 21 Jac. I. c. 16, limits the period
for all writs of formedon to twenty years, and
generally enacts, that no person shall make entry
into any lands but within twenty years next after
his right of entry accrued. This, with the single
exception of fine and non-claim, was the first and
is the only limit by statute to a right of entry,
which at common law was never taken away by
lapse of time, but only by descent cast, discon-
tinuance, or warranty.
The statute of 32 Hen. VIII. c. 2, contains
no saving, except as to rights which were in
existence when it was passed ; but '2l Jac. I. c.
16, saves the right of persons under disability
when their rights accrue.
To actions of dower, escheat, waste and seve-
ral others in which seisin need not be alleged,
there is no bar ; and there is no period of limita-
tion, fixed either by statute or judicial presump-
tion, with respect to the right to lay tithes or ad-
vowsons. In some cases, the want of a fixed
period of limitation has been supplied by the
doubtful doctrine of presumption. Since 9 Geo.
I. c. 16, the rights of the Crown are barred by
adverse enjoyment for sixty years; but there is
yet no Statute of Limitations for the Church.
A presumptive right to incorporeal heredita-
ments can only be established by proof of en-
joyment of them for such a period as will justify
a jury, under the direction of a Judge, to infer
that the enjoyment has continued ever sine the
commencement of the reign of Richard I.
By statute 4 Henry VII. c. 24, a fine with
proclamations is made a bar to all persons hav-
ing present rights of entry, and not being under
any disabilities, if they de not claim within five
years after the proclamations made ; to all per-
sons under any disabilities, if they do not claim
within five years after their disabilities are re-
moved ; and to all persons not having present
rights, if they do not claim within five years after
their rights of entry accrue, unless under disabi-
lities, and then within five years after the removal
of their disabilities.
In many cases, the above statutes do Dot suf.