HC Deb 18 February 1824 vol 10 cc210-2
Lord Althorp,

in moving for leave to bring in a bill for the cheaper and more speedy recovery of Small Debts, said, he did not deem it necessary to make any long observations on the proposed measure, as the bill had been brought into the House last session, and had been printed and circulated widely through the country. There were in the bill which he should now, with the leave of the House, introduce, a few trifling alterations only, which had been adopted at the suggestion of the persons to whom the bill had been submitted. As there might be some gentlemen present who had not read that bill, he might state briefly its object and enactments. All the tradesmen who were examined before the committee of the House on the recovery of small debts, agreed in saying, that as to all debts under 10l. it was not now worth any tradesman's while to prosecute. In many kinds of business the majority of book debts was under 10l.; so that to all those persons there was an absolute denial of justice, and the creditors depended entirely on the honour and honesty of their debtors. That this was a state of things that ought to be remedied, there was, he supposed, no question; the only question would be, whether the means he proposed for removing it were the proper ones. To put an end to the evil arising from such a defective system of law, he would propose that in every county in England an assessor should be appointed to the sheriff, who should make a circuit through the different towns of the county, holding a species of assize at such of them as the justices in quarter sessions assembled should appoint. He likewise intended that the cases should be decided by the intervention of a jury. The noble lord then moved, for leave to bring in a bill to prevent delay and expenses in the proceedings of county courts, and for the more easy and speedy Recovery of Small Debts in England and Wales."

Mr. J. Smith

seconded the motion. The hon. member said, he had witnessed the evils resulting from the expenses attending the present system of recovering small debts; indeed, if he were called on to state the greatest oppression which the poor endured, he should mention the vexation and expense suffered in the recovery of small debts. He had known an instance of the effects of it in his own family. A servant of his had been arrested for a debt of 17l. 6s. The debt had been originally 3l. 8s. and the man being entirely ignorant of law, and having made no defence, the mere costs of proceeding to judgment and execution had amounted to 14l. Now, he would leave the house to judge whether any thing could be more oppressive than such a system. Individuals were, under its operation, forced into gaol, as was the case ultimately with the individual to whom he had alluded, who was arrested for 17l. 8s. The solicitor who enforced the process, and who was a very respectable man, had declared, that not a day passed in which he had not a similar duty to perform; namely, that of arresting individuals for debts which were raised to an enormous magnitude on account of the costs. Many persons sued for small debts made no defence to the action, because they knew that if they did, they would involve themselves in still greater difficulties. The noble lord could not, he thought, do a greater benefit to the lower class of tradesmen than by persevering in this measure, to which he sincerely hoped no opposition would be offered.

Leave was given to faring in the bill.