The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-05-13 00:00:00

tiuian. In our own Mr. JAMES BRANcKER we have all where that difficulty is likely to arise, and the words debt or de.
these qualities in most beautiful profusion. He is the mend prevent the extension of their power to torts. But thiS
;
best sample of imperturbable ignorance we ever beheld.
bill proposes a more daring act of letlstl
court to try and determine all actiuUs;'
o.r(.t•Zes T zotf edmeibmt,"e.exi.csetihrte-
He gapes and laughs, and the mob grin with him, but on
• ing thoae before stated. Thus questions of tio-er, bailment
whatgrounds, or whether by compulsion, GOD only knows!
trespass, and assault, are as the' bill now stands within itsii
Jo-
We do not confine these animadversions to Liverpool.
risciiciion, providing the parties aggrieved ay their damages
These contemptible jesters are now the leaders of almost nude, iilleen pounds. Had the clause followed the words of ';'he
all the corporations in England. . The greatest fool has lam amendment act debt or demand only, via those causes of ac-
the Most admirers. He who murders in the most horrid Lion over which the court should have power, the jurisaictiou
manner the King's, English is held in the highest esteem. would have been properly restrained, but as now worded it is
In Scotland, as in England, only the second-rate trades- made to embrace issues, the List of which invariably involve
men, anti, singularly enough, the first-rate patriots in
the most difficult questions -of law and fact. So preposterous
the estimation appears the conferring e power of this nature on any court, other
.of the people, have obtained the principal than a court of record, that we are inclined to believe it the
power. In other terms, it is not the householder who effect of error rather than of intention. However that may be,
employs the artist to sweep his chimney—it is the aim- such, in its p,esent roan, is the dangerous authority this bill
neysvveep who condescends to relieve the helpleSs house- -proposes to confer. -- The average number of vases set down fur
,holder of his accumulated soot. It is not he who bakes hearing on court days under the present jurisdiction amount to
about th(ee hundred. What will be the average under the in,
the sugar loaf who is dependant, but he who buys it. If
tended jurisdiction. The increase of business will be such,
you send your boots to be mended, it is not the cobbler
that plaintiffs will in many cases have to be in attendance with
-
who is Patrouised—he is kind enough to confer a most
their witnesses for days together, which attendance will not be
pat ticniar favour upon you. What right has any conser- opaonal but compulsory, as the bill deprives the plaintiff of
costs should he proceed fur the recover
iof his demand in any
vative to order iris sugar to be sent co his address, or his
ot her coua, thus takiog away the power of choosing that in which
boots to be soled? -It is p::.studied insult The feet say
to the head, "we are ling!" to seeks ,edress, a right whiCh we conceive consequent with the
cause of action itself. No less objectionable- than this excessice
Lord JOHN riussELL having by treaty with an Irish extension of jurisdiction is the renderitig infants liable to
blackguard, who is the agent of a debauched priesthood, 'be sued in this court.. The ()Teat encouragement it will offer
- a
reduced England to this most unhappy and humiliating to designing tradesmen to give unnecessary credit to young men
condition, anti his lordship being desirous to reduce Ire- ought to render it a matter of considerable moment to parents'
land to the saute plight, the question arises whether it and geaedians. Tire fact of their being only partial redress for
would not be better to abolish and extirpate municipal w these ho tusw;selv give credit to minors is in itself a safeguard
both to thatradesman and parent. "g
removed
'his barrier being'
corporations altogether. . On due consideration we are
the latter will bird th„t aliuwauces,
arenot suf..
prepared to support the affirmative of this proposition. licient to pie sent- them front unpleasant liabilities. The clause
Must unquestionably, as regards Ireland, we consider the proposing. that the service of a summons—upon (me—where two'
abolition of the corporations to be a wise measure. By or more are liable, shall he sufficient notice to the whole, would
this act no triumph will be given to either party. The be a singular feature in any other but this bill. The wide field-
such a regulation would open to fraud, by enabling oae defend-
records.ltarge of corruption will be swept away from the national
ant in pint debts by coalescing with a plaintiff without the
Dublin, Cork, and Belfast will be governed -as
koowledge of the reaiuin, parties to fix them with unjust.
Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, and other towns are.
habiliti mes, is an evil so apparent that we do not consider any
There would then be no nucleus around which the corm- comments of ours necessary 10 point out its fallacy. Upon sion of local discontent could be gathered.-- it would dis- what InStikibl- ground a deposit can heclaimed before allowing
arm jealousy of its murmurs, party of its ideal wrongs, parties to yroceed for the recoveJy of their, demands, we are at
and the popish priests of their clamorous objections.lf a loss to imagine; but certain we are such an enactment will be
in effect at a tosu.rinountobile, barrier between the poor and jus,-
the amended bill be carried it will be the happiest mea-
sure . Claims in courts ot, t
i's d ,scription are generally for sina 1
.
sure of reform ever conceded to Ireland. If lost, by the
, yet the withholding them oftentimes reduces the
intrigues of the ministry, at the command of O'CoN- suitor nigh to starvation. Deposits are easily paid by the
NELL, which is more than probable, a new handle will be wealthy, but far otherwise with the poor. and we have no
given to the agitator, a new scheme of fraud and swind- scruple in saying-, the framers of this bill in proposing- an•
ling based upon it, and the provocatives of his arguments enactment of this nature, forgot they were •legislating more.
especially for the latter class of people than the former. Should
and addresses will inure speedily lead to that straggle
and civil war in which the insulted protestants of Eng-
this proposed enactment pass into a law, it will
.be an absolute
though covert (like most radical acts) denial- of justice to the
land will, by cutting short priestly distraction, very sooti
lower orders of the community,
and we would, therefore,
put an end to 'O'CoNNELL's power, and justify their prin- strongly urge the necessity of its being strenuously op-
ciples by the adoption of the restrictive system :of their posed.
ancestors. Before closing our present observations We must not •
omit to point out one proposition, if .possible, more
strikingly absurd than any before noticed, we refer to
the clause relative to the imprisonment of debtors taken ins
execution under process from this court. A scale of the times •
of imPrisOutnent is set forth in the bill, the period of confinement
being proportioned to the, amount of the demand—ahe lowest'
suits entitling the creditor to retain his debtor in custody for the
shortest period. Then follows dm clause limiting (in cases
where two or more executions are issued and lodged against a
debtor at the same time) the length of cooffneuient on the second
and followieg execution to half the period of the first. An ex-
ample will render this proposed enactment more
Supposing A, B, and C have separate demands, and obtain
execution for them against ll: A for five sbilliugs, B for feu
pounds, and C fur 1:1,1 19s. 11,3,-d., the extreme limit of the in-
tended jurisdiction. A takes his debtor in eaecutiou first, the'
demand being only live shillings, he will be entitled to detain
him, say five days. B, for his £lO, and C, for his £l4 I9s.
will only be entitled to detain him half the time beyond that of -
A, that is 2 days. The reverse or the case is equally absurd—
as A for a demand of is. will retain his debtor in confinement
the same length of time as B for LW; and these periods of im-
prisonment are intended to exonerate the debtor as effectually
front any further liability:, as though he had taken the benefit of
the insolvent deiaors' act. This is an amendment truly l'or those
parties who ase very willing to incur debts, but otherwise dis-
posed as to their honourable liquidatiuu.. ,
It is not our intention to comment upon these proposed alte-
rationswi;hout arming some observations as to what improves
inents are requisite, and may be beneficially made, in the judi- •
cial arrangements of this court; but it does appear to us that the
framers of this bill haVe entirely overlooked the evil against -
which they-ought to have provided, and attempted to prescribe
a remedy where there ekists no disease. The fault lies not in
the judicial arrangement, nor in the want of a more extensive
jurisdiction. We have no hesitation in saving a respectable
solicitor would be quite as efficient a chief commissioner as a
barrister of live years' standing. The great objection to the
present Court of Requests. is the total want of order or regularity
in its proceedings. This arises not from any absence of authority,
but front the practice of allowing litigant parties to be then-own
advocates. Incapable of selecting what is or is not evidence
applicable to their case, they occupy the time of court With
a crowd of statements entirely tineign to the qaestion in issue.
The assertion of the plaintiff is generally followed by a flat denial
on the part of defendant; personal recrimination follow, amidst
wrangling and dispute the decision is givcu, and the authority
of tire court is oftentimes insufficient to prevent the unsuccessful
party front inflicting summary punishment en his opponent even
within its precincts. We appeal to these cognizant with this
court as to the correctness of our statounts ; and if :such is the
tainsequeuce arising from allowing parties to advocate their own
-causes in demands of so trivial amount as those underalOs., what
•willbe the conduct of parties when the claim is much more
serious? To remedy this evil we would suggest, that in cases
where the disputing•parties purpose to call witnesses, the court
should decline hearing them personally, and insist on their ap-
pearance by attorney. By so doing a gm-eat saving of time
would be obtained, and the glee: objection, the disorderly manner
of giving evidence, removed. 'fan extension of the jurisdiction
lie considered really necessary, five punch; should he the utino,st..
limit, will;au option reserved to the phillitlit in 41eUtSetiCepcling.
forty shillings, to sue in any other court, wilhuut being deprived
by so doing or costs of suit. A power should also be given-
to the chief commissioner analogous to that given by the law
amendment act to the judges of the superior courts, in cases
where, on the hearing of the summons, the citiestion appears to
involve any difficult question of law or fact, to dismiss the hear-
ing and refer it to the decision r othleitij)ivartyie. s
proceeded to
ttroialtlo,irss
eitils.eic-atosdhu(c)7ilidnibiengatne%hritchcl;f record, should entitle the success-
ful party to costs. With these trivial amendments we should
consider, this court quite eligible to take cognizance of any
questions properly iu the jurisdictiou of courts not of record. Of
the present bill passing into law we- hate not the slightest ap-
prehension., The exclusive system of patronage it confers, from
the appointment of the sergeant at mace or town sheriff to the
lowest bound bailiff of the court' of requests, will find as little
countenance in the upper house as from the commuuity at large.
So great must be the alterations amd, amendments it must nevessa-
-
rily undergo to render it iu any way beneficial, that iew, after its
improvements, will recognise the first specimen of legislation
given us by our reformed corporation. In couclusium we taus
ui)rfoilditiistsptioayed u
congratulater that body cot the talent and disinterested
spirit .
Which we doubt not the
gh
the
whole of its enactwents, qualities
public will properly appreciate.

• But why not pursue the same policy in England ? The
principle,-if good here, might- conditionally be good in
Ireland. The analogy, they say, is not sustainable.
What May be practicable on that side of the Irish chan-
nel May be quite the reverse on this. But we waive the
point in contending for a principle equalfy available, if
practicable, in both islands. In depriving Irelandof Corp o•
rations-we found our defence of the-admitted difference,
not more upon the inapplicability of circumstances than
upon the essential and admitted error in the rule. Cor•
porations are not now necessary in the local government of
this country. We have robbed the burgesses. We have
given men, who are recognised as freemen, the power to
vote as free men in the election of parliamentary repre-
sentatives, but we have denuded the same men of the
right to vote for their municipal officers. This is glaring
injustice. It is robbery as indefensible as ever was co►n-
witted. - It is the law of the land, however, and we are
bound to respect it. But if robbery be expedient as regards
one class of his Majesty's subjects, surely robbery, being
part of state policy, in open disregard of national mora-
lity and responsibility, is equally applicable to the cir-
cumstances of another class. Ilre are not the apologists
of fraud ; but we contend if one man be robbed so should
another•. If he who sells palm oil is taxed, so should
he who who sells shoes. If PETER SMITH, who sells
newspapers, is taxed, so should JOHN SMITH, who sells
lozenges and castor oil. Let us only ha►•e fair play.
Irish corporations are declared td be a nuisance; they
are, but so are English and Scotch corporations. What
then ? We say dismantle both-7-eradicate the cancer in
both cases. Leave the church to tight its own battles,
but strip of power the papist, the unitarian, the quaker,
the anabaptist, and all that republican faction who are
contesting for power, not for religion, but . who make
their several tenets a mere passport to po►►wer and place,
and therek establish the must intolerable tyranny e►er
recognise d% this or any other country.

'THE NEW COURT OF REQUESTS' BILL.

(CONTINUED FROM THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD OF THIS DAY

WEEK.)

If it were our wish to cavil at words this bill would certainly
afford sufficient scope to any inclination that way; but such not
being our object we shall pass over many minor faults, and pro.
ceed in our review of the most objectionable clauses relating to
the Court of Requests. The necessity for an alteration in the
present arrangement we have already admitted, but we cannot
concede that the sweeping change now proposed is by any
means required. As the remodelling of this cow is in fact the
'real though covert aim of the bill we shall be more minute in
our notice of it. It designs to establish a court for the recovery
of small debts not exceeding -, (the sum proposed is /fifteen
pounds,) to be held at one or more convenient place or places
in the borough once or oftener during the week. A barrister of
not less than five years standing to be the chief commissioner
in the appointment of the council, and paid a yearly salary out of
the borough fund. The recorder, stipendiary magistrate or
,magistrates, assessor and town-clerk of the borough, are also to
be chief commissioners. The commissioner, with -- (two are
intended) persons, who are to be qualified as councillors of the
borough to be appointed annual_ commissioners, who, with a
chief commissioner) are to form the court. All officers are to
be in the appointment of the council, to whom they are to give
security. All the fees of the court, and also those received by
the officers, are to be paid into the borough fund, out of which
•the salaries of these officers are to be provided. The jurisdic-
tion of the court is to extend to determine all disputes and dif-
ferences for auy suns of money nut exceeding fifteen pounds in
all actions or causes of debt, except such questions as involve the
right or title to any freehold or cha!tels real, or the balance of
debt originally exceeding -- pounds, or any question of
tithes, toll, or custom that may in any way relato to the fran-
chises, privileges, or chartered rights of the borough. Infants
are to be rendered liable to be sued in this court, and service of
i
the summons of the court on one where two or more are mutly
liable is to be deemed sufficient notice to all. No summonses
are to be issued without deposit being made commensurate with
the amount of the intended claim.. In cases where a debtor is
taken in execution the creditor who first attaches bun is to de-
tain him in custody the full period of imprisonment allowed by
Mu
the cou-t, according to the a
ount of his ebt, and all creditors
uu executions issued previously to the party being taken in exe-
cution succeeding the first are to tletatutheir debtor only hay
the period ofThe first imrisonment. The present jurisdiction
is to be extended to the parliameatary boundaries.

LONDON L d 7'ES' 7' Nh WS.

City, tr''etitiescluy Eceaog,ll-past Sareno'clock.
There are none of the long-outstanililig arrivals in to-day,
there being now due one Lisbon, one Mediterranean, one Jamai-
ca, one Leeward 'stand, one Mexican, ail one Brazil mail,
with an innumerable host of vessels how almost every part of
the globe.

It is easily perceptible that this bill is in effect an attempt to
palm upon the public an institution similar to that which has been
already rejected in the proposed local courts' bill. On an inquiry
in 1824 there were supposed to exist throughout the whole king-
dom about sixty-two courts partaking of the nature of courts of
request, thirty two whose jurisdictions extended to debts or de-
mands pot exceeding two pounds, twenty-aline not exceeding live
pounds, and one only, that of bath, whose jurisdiction extended
to debts amounting to ten pounds. As far,. therefore, as prece-
dent may be required to justify the extension of the jurisdiction
Of this court to 1;15, it is unsupported. Had the inhabitants of
Bath found the working of their court beneficial, there is little
doubt the example would have been followed elsewhere. Ex-
' perience has proved that in debts of considerable amouut
ajury, assisted by a judge, is the fit and proper tribunal
to weigh and decide on the mass of evidence that is ne-
cessarily brought forward in support or denial of ,a disputed de-
mand. roe body of evidence in actions of the Most connnon
occurrence (those on simple conti acts and actions forfixed and
certain damages) is oftentimes of the most intricate and contra-
dictory nature. , It is with great difficulty that truth can be eli-
cited in these cases even in trials before a jury—where witnesses
prevaricating are liable to the severe cross-examinationof .coun,
sel; what then must it be where. the plaintiff and defendant is
each his own advocate. A never-emling system or wrangling.
and contradiction must inevitably follow. -So jealous is the
legislature of any enactment compelling suitors to resort to an
inferior tribunal for trial ofissues involving any difficult question
of lakror fact, that although in the law amendment act, (3d and
4111 William the Fourth,) which was a modification of the loca
courts' bill, a power is given to the judges of the superior courts
in actions commenced there for any debt or demand not amount,- .
ino to £2O to .direct issues to be tried before a jury by the
sheriff, or.some judge of an inferior court of record in the county
w here the plaiutiff resides; yet that power is specially restrained I

Rumours ate strongly curient here of the attro,lehing resig-
nation of Lord Melbourne, hut within., has heel] put forth as to
who will succeed hit,' as Prenjer. 'With this exception, we
have no intelligence of any moment to rornmonicale.
The Cnnsol mat ket, during- the whole of ilic week, has been
on the advance, and 92i, is ;lee present quitt.it ton fitr the Coo- •
sols, both tot mi—oi Arid
.arci.allii'. 111 the Exchequer Bills
thdre is a-decided decline t tr• (In k, the pieutiton twin l'i falling to
13, and India bonds wear a heavy onotat ion at-3 to 5 pile.
Our Foreign market evinces considerable': etaio,,l6l)".i" P"-
tng,ese Stock, the 5' per cents. being at 85,1, and the 3 per cents.
at 543. • : , • : -
In 4panish, the intelligence from Spain, teeming with " glo-
rious and fearful" record of the feats of aims of the adYenturoes
under the orders of Chltifiel Evans; has had DO c;,:,(21. UpUll the
Bonds the holders of which have been gulled lon nfien to pace
much reliance Olt staternents trout the absent M.P. The quo_
tattoo of Spanish Bonds at the close of business this aiterbuou
was 161,.
Austrian Bonds are at 1021, ne'lgian ''...,,k i,, id. 2., Dutch 5
per
Our various Northern 'Sec,,orities dl:p:a,,, ji,tie or lutp,est.•
cents are at 1021, the 21 per et-W, ,; 0
... :,1:,1 i:itzsiom ate at --
1091 110. '
fil the RepublicanLoucs t „ c ~„1,,,e
....:c,, , , .
if utir is the" '''' ''''''!': ''f inr"n'turceL:t'7l''st is
t'r
"
of them. Chilian Bonds til•e• ,1.-• ~ et, 1 c , ' • oolug in aT,y .
traded (I)ino.dt(iinT, Ow
_ -, ~,i -,,,r , , •
and Mekican are :14 3•)-1. • o.unten.ln are 0,1
Salislnity, Exeter, Ply-,
e, u.....„
Co.mpany's Prospectus has'
), ,In our Shaartelainhaarskaett,t :all:.
mouth, and Falmouth Itailroad
afternoon at 1.,', to 1 prin., with a hem
tout
keett.i?tittient being this
be-Ltheisisssiheads,
been dune' in most of our othe.;i: Shares, but some
few are steady.
Calcut,t)l a and Saugur Shares are at.
;3. prin.
Greenwich Shares' are .:.',-t
per share, with a P reviving market. ' reston and Wvre at
1)
•e at 10 ill prin., and the Dept Pier
are at a prin. Biral•
Ingham and' Derbv ShareS'are 12 to 13 per
share, Birmin(rhant •
and the London 8ia.,",(1 Gliweesterb.l-9, Commeteialßlaekwall
wall have both receded considerably, the
former h ivino fallen. . ' to"i per share and the ••• , " '
In the Brighton Shares
to
'-'B-.
aretredsultlhereis nothing o; iaiportance to :
notice; Stevenson's per shate; Gibbs at par ;
Rennies are 1%, and Cund -' at
1
) s 2 per share.
Itof
1 none the other schemes is thm • e much cluiin, South-.
ampton are 28 per share, Grand Junction are 3 i e: '''
Midland Counties are 7'- Colonial B k r pern share,'
' ' '
72,au are 0 -4--anu,e
and Maine are 8 ,}., and North Midland 13 per share. -
..