THE LOCAL COURTS.

THE Appropriation Bill of the last session of Parliament directs that the Lords ofthe Treasury may issue any sum or sums ofmoney, not exceeding 31,0001., to pay, to the 31st day of March 1840, the al- lowances and expenses of the barristers employed in revising lists of voters under the Act to amend the Representation of the People of England and Wales. If it had been proposed in Parliament that thirty-one Local Judges should be appointed with salaries of 1,0001. a year each, there would have been a great outcry and the most ludicrous lamentations upon the increase of the patronage of the Crown. Sensible men would have said, that if such judges were necessary it was the duty of the Government and of the Le- gislature to appoint them ; but persons ignorant of' the duties of legislation would have complained of the patronage such appoint- ments would occasion. Let 31,000/. a year be squandered upon one hundred and seventy barristers, to perform in the worst possible manner the simplest and the easiest duties, and not a remark against it is uttered. For about 15,000/, a year more than is paid to Revising Barristers alone, a Local Judge might be appointed with an ample salary in every county in England and Wales; who, besides executing all the higher duties of a judge in the determi- nation of criminal and civil matters, and of cases both of law and equity, might also, as a part of his duty, revise the lists of voters in every borough and division of the county in which he would have to act. A great econonI would be the result of such appoint- ments. Courts with efficient judges would then exist ; an educated bar would soon be found in every part of the kingdom; and, with a good system of appeal, there would be unifbrmity of law, despatch in its administration, and a real distribution of justice. Borough Courts, Manor Courts, County Courts, Courts of Requests, and every other petty jurisdiction, might then be abolished, with all their petty abuses and petty tyranny. But how long shall we have to wait before such a change will be accomplished? Last week We pointed out many remarkable particulars connected with Courts of Requests : we this week continue the abstract of the returns relating to them and other Courts. The following list

exhibits some remarkable facts connected with the mode in which these courts inflict imprisonment.

Limit of Debt Amount of Amount of Number of Persons committed to that may Debts Debts Maximum terut of Imerison• 1837. be sued for. sued for, recovered. moot.

14 persons for 100 days. ... 34 persons for COO days. ... 3 persons 6,r 100 days. 68 persons for 100 days. 5(i for 40 days.

... 4 Inc 28 days.

... 20 days-the maximum.

84 persons for 40 days. ... 80 days is the maximum term

of imprisonment, but Ito per- son was committed in the last three years for that time, mid there is no im- prisonment fur sums under 20 shillings,

1 for 100 days.

78 persons for C weeks. ... 80 persons for 100 days. ... 10 persons thr 100 davs. Imprisonment here lids ceased for sonic years, there being no gaol to receive debtors. Except in eases of rratul, the Court can only commit for

seven days.

a This is the sum paid into court, exeltaire of the sums ordered to be paid, or paid direct to the plaintiffs.

By the 5th and 6th W. IV. c. 70. sect. 2. in force in Scotland only, it is enacted, that it, shall not be lawful for any person to ap- prehend or detain in custody any debtor for a civil debt under the sum of 8/. 6s. 8d. in virtue of the decree of a small debt court, letters of caption, or other warrant. So that in Scotland, for up- wards of four years, imprisonment for small debts has been abo- lished. In England, however, such imprisonment is in full opera- tion; and nearly every town has its distinct law on the subject. At Norwich, a debt of two pounds will send a man to gaol for six weeks ; at Folkestone, only for twenty days; in Westminster, for seven days ; and in London and the Tower Hamlets, his person will be exempt from seizure. At Bath, 34 persons, in 1837, were committed for 200 days, for debts under 10/. ; and at Sheffield, no fewer than 90 persons were committed for 100 days for debts under 51. At Bath, the maximum term of imprisonment is in all cases rigidly enforced; yet out of the sum of 8,865/. sued for, only 4,669/. was recovered. The Court of Requests in London bas jurisdiction to the same amount as that of Bath, though it cannot

commit for a longer term than 80 days; and yet, out of a sum of

10,076/. sued for, the sum of 7,4671. was recovered. At Halifax also, the maximum term of imprisonment is generally inflicted ; and yet, out of 7,295/. sued for, 3,1121. only was recovered ; while in the Tower Hamlets, where imprisonment is abolished, out of 15,100/. sued for, 9,740/. was recovered. The necessity of im- prisonment cannot be defended after these returns. There are, no doubt, cases where persons have been sent to prison, and have been released upon their debts being paid by friends or strangers ; but no creditor ought to be permitted to cal- culate upon his debt being thus discharged, or to give credit in the expectation of it. In the great majority of cases, this assist- ance is not given,—and these only the Legislature ought to re- gard. Imprisonment in these cases is a barbarous and useless punishment ; taking from society the labour of the party impri- soned, imposing a useless charge upon the public for his confine- ment, depriving his family of his support, throwing their mainte- nance upon the parish, and frequently terminating in the ruin of many, who but for the prison would have paid their debts, and have successfully struggled against their difficulties. Execution against the goods of a debtor should be awarded—all the rest is useless and wicked.

'l 'hie returns relating to the County Courts show that such

Courts might without impropriety be abolished. Their jurisdiction extends to sums not exceeding forty shillings, unless in special eases. The only County Court that appears to have been regu- lated is that of _Middlesex. Of this Court Mr. Sergeant 1 EATII is the presiding officer. In 1837, no fewer than 22,968 suits were instituted in it, for debts amounting to 22,051/. ; of which suits, 6,2:38 were settled out of court, and judgments were given for 14,264/. in respect of 16,730 causes that were heard. None of these causes were for sums above forty shillings. Mr. Sergeant 11nArit has made several attempts to extend the jurisdiction of the I1liddlesex Court • but has always been defeated by an outcry that he was seeking to increase his own emoluments,—which, if true, would be a matter of very little importance, if 20,000 more suitors consented to have their cases heard by hint. In 1837 the fees amounted to 3,452/. ; and his own court, and that of his deputy, whose salary he pays, sat 113 days, or both courts 226 days. In the same year, 907 debtors were committed to Whiteeross Street Prison, but none of them for the maximum term that it is in the power of the Court to commit. Mr. e. &meant HEATu deserves infinite credit for his exertions to extend the useful efficiency of his office.

The other County Courts in the kingdom present the greatest defects. They do not all appear to be without. some use, since in that of Lancashire, in 1837, 8,825 causes were instituted, and judg- ments obtained in 5,300; but the small fees payable in the Middle- sex Court, and the number and amount of those demanded in Lancashire, afford a most remarkable contrast.

.The Borough Courts appear to have been seriously interfered with by the Municipal Reform Act. At Ipswich and Bath, there has been no trial for three years ; at Plymouth, there has been none

A hton s liath

Beverley

Caoterhary Faversham

t r

I outdo' -

MeItsibain

Norwich

Sternal

Stochport Tower Hamlets Westminster 5 ....

10 ....

5 ....

2 2 .... 2 .

....

10 ....

5 ....

5

5 5 ....

6 4,054 8,865 738 830 204

77 7,295

10,076 815

17,606

5,318 15,100 15,641 ...

...

...

• • • ...

...

... , 3,743 4,669 408 8,210 —

42

3,112

7,467

762 — 13,521 4,001 9,740

for two years; at Wells, the same ; and in this last town Mr AMBROSE G. LETHBRIDGE was appointed Recorder, but not

being of' five years standing at the bar, the court could not be held. In some places it is the wish of the majority of the inhabitants that these Courts should be made efficient. This is particularly the ease of Winchester. The return fiasn Doncaster states, that the Court is seldom resorted to, in consequence of its proceedings being liable to be removed, at any stage, into the Court, of Queen's Bench; and a similar statement is made in other returns. This

is a defect which the house of Co:Jai-ions last session endeavoured to remedy. By a majority of 57 to 2, a clause was added to the Borough Courts Bill, to the effect that no suit for a sum under 50/.

should be removed by certiorari, unless under certain stringent con-

ditions. The effect of this clause would have been to make all the Recorders resident judges, to destroy all the Local Courts of Re- quest, and to diminish by at least one half the County business of

the Superior Courts. Lord DEsmAN, who took charge of the bill, refused to sanction the amendment of the Commons; and another bill was brought in by him, and carried, which omitted the clause

that had been added to his first bi!l. By how simple a means had one of the most extensive changes in the administration of the law nearly been accomplished!

The Borough Courts, however. appear to he, in some towns, not entirely without advantage. At Newen stle, in 1837, 727 summonses were issued, for debts amounting to -,210/.; and of this sum, the debts exceeding 20/. each ninon:10A to 6,042/. At Norwich, 722 summonses were issued ; the larger portion of the sums sued for being for debts exceeding 20/.

All these facts prove how anome'ous and inconsistent our whole system of Local Courts is, if systeot it can be called. In Courts of Requests, sums varying from one s1flhng to ten pounds can be recovered ; in County Courts, SUMP not exceeding, except in cer- tain cases, the amount of forty shillings, are recoverable ; and in Borough Courts, sums to almost any amount may be sued for. All these Courts have great and grievous defects. They are connected with no system of appeal, and there is little responsibility imposed upon the presiding officers. In the Borough mid County Courts, the mode of procedure is generally complex and tedious, over- burdened with fees and del'. To extinguish all these courts, and to create a new system of local judicature, is within the power of any Ministry anxious to make the Mir acce,,sible and its adminis- tration satisfactory. But the beginning of the next session would be " too early" to propose such a measure, and the end of it " too late" to carry it.

They who recollect the manner in which Sir JOHN CAMPBELL delayed, from session to session, any active endeavours to carry what is called the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Bill, will not be surprised that he is indifferent to the condition of the hundreds who are annually committed to prison for sums varying from one shilling to ten pounds. The cries of humble debtors have not yet interrupted his private practice. Can Lord JOHN Russm.t., who for so long a time was in communication, as Home Secretary, with the Inspectors of Prisons, be ignorant of them ; or has he too been deaf to the poor mechanic and the helpl ss labourer ? It is now the duty of Lord NOB MANBY to attend to this subject : what is his fitness for the task ? Alone he can do nothing ; and yet those who have hitherto been employed by the Ministry to aid them in the prepa- ration of bills respecting Local Courts, have exhibited much igno- rance of the law, greater ignorance of its practice, and an utter igno- rance of the essentials of a good systcIII of local judicature.