listening to one of the most masterly speeches ever delivered in Parliament. There was a manly fervour, a serious energy, in his tone and manner-a severe simplicity of style -a beauty and comprehensiveness of detail-a graceful, good-humoured, but most caustic sarcasm-a convincing strength of argument, which elicited repeated cheering from the House-followed, at its close, by several minutes' applause; but received from the candid unenvious Chancellor, one short allusion, and that characterising it as a piece of "carping declamatory sneering" No! Not a syllable of kindnessscarce of frigid courtesy-escaped his lips, while replying to a speech from his splendid rival, destitute of even a tinge of acrimony or personality! He was obviously mortified and alarmed at the powerful impres. sion produced on all sides of the House by their Ex-Chancellor. Lord Plunkett, on the contrary, commenced his reply, such as it was, with an admission "that he feared the House would consider him presumptuous in offering himself to their Lordships, after the transcendant and masterly speech to which they had been listening; that he did not come forward in the hope of answering it." We considered him indeed presumptuous; and we vouch so also did Lords Grey and Brougham, who could not conceal their vexation at the tame, stammering, hesitating tone in which Lord Plunkett spoke, who had been hastily summoned from Ireland for that purpose. Even his acknowledged and practised powers were signally at fault that night; either through a consciousness of the weak cause he was advocating, or the overwhelming superiority of the speaker he was following. We challenge any Peer or Commoner then present to impeach the accuracy of our statement.

When Lord Brougham rose to reply, vengeance gleamed in his eyebut not towards the spot occupied by Lord Lyndhurst; his smothered fury at length burst-not upon Lord Lyndhurst, but (pace tanti viri!) up. on one he considered a less formidable antagonist-Lord Wynford. Him Lord Brougham assailed with a savageness of personal enmity which disgusted the House and disgraced

the speaker and that with the Throne of Majesty immediately behind, the supreme seat of justice beside him! Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo! Afraid of approaching Lord Lyndhurst, he fixed his teeth the more vehemently in Lord Wynford, whom he worried with wit, thought his friends-with insult, thought the House. We wish, good reader, you had been present that memorable evening. You would have seen a Lord High Chancellor, clad in the solemn costume of office, at times grinning and leering-twisting and writhing about-full of violent ungainly gesticulations-whisking to and fro the long sleeves of his robe-raving, ranting, tearing away

but hush! Sweet "People"-that was "the Poor Man's Friend!" He was advocating "the Poor Man's Bill" he was brow-beating the "Poor Man's enemies."

"THE POOR MAN'S BILL!"-Yes, this shocking twaddle was passionately adopted by Lord Broughamrepeated and harped upon, till at length he succeeded in eliciting the languid cheers of His Majesty's Ministers-despite the masterly and cutting exposure of Lord Lyndhurst Hear him:

"It has been said that this is the Poor Man's Bill. Why, there is not a morning on which I do not find the same doctrine instilled into me in one of those documents, to which it is unnecessary more particularly to allude. It is said, 'You must have some underhand motive for opposing such a measure.' The statement is not true. Never was there a Bill less a poor man's Bill than this. It is a Bill to enable a man of property to obtain judgment, to sue out execution, and to seize the property of the poor man, to assign it to the Registrar, to sell it; to turn him and his family into the streets in six weeks! It is emphatically, my Lords, a bill to oppress the poor. It is a bill to satisfy the creditor, by compelling the poor debtor to render him more speedy payment than could be ob tained from the wealthy debtor-it is a bill to give the wealthy every possible facility of oppressing the man in the humble walks of life. The operation of the bill will be this

tradesmen, shopkeepers and others, will allow the poor man to run into debt

to the extent of his property, and if he fails to make instant payment, they will destroy him without mercy. Let me refer your Lordships to the evidence of Sir John Cross, who was examined by the Commissioners. He was asked Have you found any inconvenience from the facility with which small debts are recovered in the Court you have mentioned?' He answered I had frequent occasion to observe that the facilitating the recovery of small debts tended much to facilitate the contracting of them by the poor and improvident, and to the consequent increase of litigation and poverty. It is a frequent practice for publicans to allow drink to their customers upon credit to an extent which I think they would not have done, if there had not been a court in which they could recover the amount so contracted; and I observed, in a great many instances, that small shopkeepers who dealt in provisions, dealt largely in credit to the poor. The wives, and even the children of workmen, who were from home engaged in their occupations, could go to one of those shops and obtain what they wanted, which was charged as a debt to the absent master of the family; and the account would run on in this way, as long as the shopkeeper thought it safe to risk his property upon such credit. He would go on with a great many customers of that description at the same time, and at a convenient season he would sue out in one day summonses against twenty or thirty such customers, and carry his accounts into the Court of Requests against them all.'-That is the testimony of a gentleman who had presided for several years over one of these small tribunals, in the town of Manchester, which is one of the best administered small-debt courts in the kingdom. On his judgment implicit reliance may be placed; and after hearing that, it may be asked, whether THIS is to be considered -the Poor Man's Bill! I wish to direct your Lordships' attention to the nature of the evidence on which this bill has been founded. It is called the Poor Man's Bill. Were the poor, then, the witnesses who have been examined? No; the wit

nesses were-wholesale tradesmen, shopkeepers, and sometimes bankers! Well-and what do they say? One, that there is nothing so abominable as the law of debtor and creditor in this country; that there ought to be a power for the creditor to imprison the debtor, and compel him to work till he had discharged the debt, or a percentage upon it. Another says that there is no such abominable system in the world, as that of the Insolvent Debtors' Court. Another, that these courts should be without attorneys, and without professional men altogether; and, in short, if your Lordships will read the evidence, you will find that the chief object of those who were examined, seems to have been to procure a law which would enable the creditor to oppress, to grind, to destroy, with the utmost facility, his poor debtor. Let not then this bill, my Lords, be called the Poor Man's Bill; for, of all other acts, it is the most oppressive towards the poor man. * * Then it is said, the defendant may remove the case to the superior court-but on what terms? Why, that he shall give security for the damages and costs which may be awarded in the action. The wealthy man will be able to do so. The bill in this, as in other respects, is in favour of the rich man-but the poor man can get no such security. What, then, is his situation? Why, that if the circumstances attending the trial are such as to preclude the hope of its impartiality in the Local Courts, he must suffer all the inconveniences of such a result. And are your Lordships considered so destitute of all understanding, as to be told, after this, that the provisions of this bill are in favour of the poor? Throughout this bill, the poor man is bound and fettered-he must take such law as they please to give him; but the rich man can evade the law with ease.

There is no provision in this Poor Man's Bill' in his favour against a partial judge; and suffering, as he is now said to suffer, under the scourge of dear and uncertain law, this bill will only add to his misfortunes, by making his oppres sion-CERTAIN.' "" #

So much for the clear masculine

sense of Lord Lyndhurst. Now hear the declamation of the Poor Man's Friend in reply. "My learned friend has been jocose [where!] in reference to bestowing on the present measure the title of The Poor Man's Bill.' I adopt the name

it is an honourable one-the Bill is the Poor Man's Bill! I call that a Poor Man's Bill which removes those obstructions which at present lie in the way of cheap and speedy justice, which enables the poor suitor, no less than the rich, to obtain a ready redress of his wrongs. I call that a Poor Man's Bill, which enables the poor suitor to obtain redress for his wrongs, or the payment of a debt, in the very next street to the cottage where he lives, without any of the expense and delay, and vexation, and uncertainty, of coming some hundred miles to London to look for costly justice. I call that a Poor Man's Bill which, without taking away the poor suitor from his daily avocations, from his family, or from the employment by which he earned subsistence, enables him to go at once into court, and, face to face to his adversary, obtain cheap and ready justice. My learned friend has impugned the title, on the ground that it is absurd to call a bill friendly to the poor suitor which affords speedy execution against him; but it must be recollected, that if the bill in view can provide speedy execution against the poor defendant, it, on the other hand, ensures him speedy execution against the rich defendant, WHEN (!) the poor man is plaintiff. He will therefore have no right to complain, particularly as, in the majority of instances, he will be plaintiff (!) It has been said, that as the poor man will not be able to afford security of costs, so as to enable him to remove the trial, in case of a wrong decision, the Bill cannot be considered as favourable to his interests. Now, this clause, for the removal of a trial, by certiorari, was introduced at the instance of a learned Lord, and very contrary to my own feelings on the subject. I yielded, however, to the sense of the House, and guarded against the abuse of the privilege by the rich man, by compelling him, in these instances, to give security, not

only for the taxed costs, but for the full costs of the action; so that the poor man will, in point of fact, receive just as cheap, though not so speedy justice. Such is the Bill I would call upon your Lordships to sanction."

Positively, dear reader, we have given you the whole of the Reply of the Poor Man's Friend, and that verbatim et literatim !

Well, then, People of England— Lawyers and Laymen! Come ye hither! "Look on this picture-and on that; "-look steadily, judge fairly and if you have an ace of understanding-if you see but an inch through the blinding mists of delusive prejudice and bigotry-lay your hands upon your hearts, and say which of these two is "The Poor Man's Friend"-which of them has established his claim to that proud distinction! If any of you hesitate, let us analyze the arguments of each.

This is not the Poor Man's, but the Rich Man's Bill, says Lord Lyndhurst, because

1stly, The rapid proceeding to execution induces creditors to trust to the value of their debtor's property; and, therefore, the facility of recovering the debt, tends to increase the facility of contracting it.

2dly, This Bill avowedly gives such rapidity of remedy as will in a trice strip the debtor (generally the poor man) of his all, and turn his family out of doors-beggars.

3dly, The contradictory opinions of the great body of creditors, examined with reference to the principle of this Bill, raises the fair inference that their real object is to oppress the poorer classes, whenever they get them into their debt.

4thly, The security for costs and contingent damages, being easily obtained by the rich man, but with great difficulty by the poor man, inevitably tends to confine the right of appeal to the rich man: Ergoit is the Rich Man's Bill.

Now-blowing away the froth and smoke-let us look closely into the Answer of the Poor Man's Friend.

This is the Poor Man's Bill, quoth he, because

1stly, It enables him to get "Jus

tice" cheaply-quickly-and without losing time in running after it.

2dly, Any speedy execution of judgment for him, is in his favour; and if he gets it instanter, he cannot complain if his creditor gets the same against him.

3dly, If the rich man wishes for an appeal, he can obtain it only by risk

LORD LYNDHURST, EX-C. The rich man is generally the creditor; facility of recovering begets facility of contracting debts; this bill avowedly increases the facility of recovering them; and it is proved that creditors are really anxious only to oppress their debtors; the poor man cannot, the rich man can, obtain security for an appeal. This is the rich man's bill.

[Aliter.]

This bill puts the poor more than ever into the power of the rich: ergo, it is the rich man's

Is it not a sight "gude for sair een," to behold the long powerful pincers with which Lord Lyndhurst firmly takes up this Poor Man's Friend, holds him at arm's length, all the while squeezing closer and closer the writhing, struggling insect (NOBLER in name than a bug, a wasp, or a dirt-fly), and then lays him down in the dirt, when, after the manner of a half-crushed wasp, a pointless sting is thrust forth with incessant but unavailing fury?

Hip-hip-hip-hurra for the Poor Man's Friend! Hurra for the -Poor Man's Bill! Here you see the Lord Chancellor fairly gravelled. Mr Attorney-General, come forward, playing Sancho to Quixote, and extricate your master from the mire! Here is work for you, that is, if you can creep into Parliament again! Who does not see that Lord Brougham's answer to Lord Lyndhurst is really none at all-mere stupid iteration of clap-trap, claptrap? "Cheap justice I Got in the next street! Got at once! Face to face," &c.! If there is a grain of argument in it, it surely belongs to the scale of Lord Lyndhurst! As for assertion, there is a notable one; -that the "Poor man is generally

ing all the costs! Now, we will ask, not which is the poor man's true friend, and which the poor man's false friend, but merely which is the poor man's discreet friend, and which his foolish friend? Line upon line

-we will distil off the essence of these two" high arguments"—thus:

LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX, C.

Admitting that the poor man is generally the debtor for there is nothing but an assertion against it], and that facility of recovering begets facility of contracting debts, the poor man must not complain, if, obtaining justice quickly, he so suffers it, at the hands of the rich man, who will not appeal in the former case, because (with the poor man) he risks costs. This is the poor man's bill. [Aliter.]

This bill puts the poor more than ever into the power of the rich: ergo, it is the poor man's bill!

the creditor!" Pray, my Lord, which of the two is oftenest the other's landlord? What is a more fertile source of oppression than rent in arrear? Who is it that sells, and who is it that must buy, at sudden exigencies, the necessaries of life, relatively speaking, the richer or the poorer man ? Who is it that sells, and who that purchases, the commonest materials of trade? Who is it that is apt, at all hazards, to come short of paying his debts-the poor or the rich debtor? And yet, in all these cases,-oh folly, cruelty, or stupidity prodigious!-you quicken and sharpen the remedies of the rich man in an Act of Parliament you nevertheless call "the Poor Man's Bill!"-Oh, my Lord, your plumes may be gaudy-your note attractive

but you are a very mocking-bird! We can scarcely treat such follies gravely: but as it is the Lord Chancellor who propounds them, we will try to meet them respectfully. We will preach from these words, to be found in the speech of Mr Henry Brougham, on the Administration of the Law, in February, 1828:

"Cheap justice, sir, is a very good thing-but costly justice is better than cheap injustice."*

Now, what sort of "justice" is likely to be obtained by "the Poor Man's Bill?"-Let us see, first of all, what sort of character the dispenser of these "healing streams" the Local Judge-is likely to prove. Weigh well the following valuable evidence of a very competent wit

ness:

"A second and greater objection is, that the [Local] Judges never change their circuits. One of them, for instance, goes the Carmarthen circuit; another, the Brecon circuit; and a third, the Chester circuit—but always the same circuit. And what is the inevitable consequence? Why, they become acquainted with the gentry, the magistrates, almost with the tradesmen of each district-the very witnesses who come before them-and intimately, with the practitioners, whether counsel or attorneys. The names-the faces-the charactersthe histories of all these persons, are familiar to them. And out of this too great knowledge grow likings and prejudices, which never can, by any possibility, cast a shadow across the open, broad, and pure paths of the Judges of Westminster Hall! Then, again, they have no retiring pensions ; and the consequence is, they retain their salaries long after they have ceased to discharge properly the functions for which they receive them."

Now, does not the truth and force of this reasoning "come home to the business and bosom" of the Poor Man? Verily it ought-for 'tis the language of His Friend-of Lord Brougham!* Witness his speech, in the character of Mr Broughamhis matured sentiments, uttered when his head was clearer than at present, when his feelings were not warped either by the vagaries of ambition, or the desire of revenge! -So much, then, for Mr Brougham in 1828. Now listen to Lord Lyndhurst in 1833 :

"Nothing can be more pernicious than this-the establishment of Local Judges. They must necessarily be confined within a very narrow district, become familiar with every litigant, with every witness; and must

likewise have their enmities and their affections, and be liable to be constantly influenced by such feelings. They will, in fact, be always liable to the suspicion of acting with partiality. Lord Hale gives a description of the local courts which formerly existed in this country, as being always liable to the charge of partiality; and states, that it was in consequence of this, that it was found necessary to establish the present system in its room: and for my own part, I cannot help thinking it would be great folly to revert to the system which our ancestors found it necessary to abandon. So strong was the prejudice on this subject, that acts of Parliament were passed to prohibit judges from administering justice in the places in which they were born, or in which they had for any length of time resided. * * * The judges under this Bill will be removed from all collision with the courts at Westminster Hall; and being without any excitement, and without the stimulus of competition, they will soon become utterly incompetent for the exercise of their duties." [Debates, July 9th.]

Then to Lord Brougham in the same year, answering both himself in 1828, and Lord Lyndhurst in 1833.

"

"He was aware that some very specious (!) objections might be urged against the measure; and he did not underrate that which rested on the local prejudices of the judges." ["Passing swiftly"] over the intervening paragraph, we find this model of consistency declaring, "that he looked on all fears arising from the local prejudices of the judges, as utterly vain and chimerical! This may well warrant us in 'passing over the remainder of this section of his speech, as unworthy of consideration or quotation. The sum of it, however, is this: That his "local judges" should be created, because we have already Justices of the Peace who well discharge similar capacities; that we have sufficient guarantee for their good behaviour in their character, and the surveillance of the press. +

So, when desperately driven,