The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-09 00:00:00

to the settlement of actions.

land and Ireland; and

The ATTORNEYS.
proceeding wes simpler

;. nee of both cou:.!

that in nineteen c.oes

on the mere twee

whether be would do.

action accompanied

ninety-nine earws oul

debt; the superior courts
cial contracts. This 10th el. ergs,—
. dumbd contain a precise statemeat of the plaintitra
.4uppoee an action brought upon a lease of s charter-party,
what an enormous capes.. this would entail. However, as
these ..eased to be a dilieroseit of epistles, ha was willing
that the alteration should be tried. They would then
have the two systrms worlds* side by side, in this country
and in Ireland ; sod it would not tban_bc didicult to deter-
aloe which was thee but. illesr, hear.)
Mr, 0. Br TT proposed an alteration of the clause, sub-
stitudag for the word narrative," "true and succinct
statement."

Mr. V. SCULLY supported the amendment. aad con-
tended that the mass legal proceedings ought to prevail in
Ireland and in England. The system of Legislating sepa-
rately for the two countries did more to create opposition
of feding than anyhing that could be devised.
Mr, WHITESIDE said the bill had not been introduced
until after gnat consideration. It had been read and ap-
ronsved by all the judges in Ireland and the late Lord
Chancellor. Tim system of pleading embodied in this bill
had been long in operation in the commercial community
of New Ynrk. _

Mr. MASSEY was in favour of the single proceeding.
Mr. R. MOORE said if the arguments in favour of the
double proceeding were well founded, they would equally
apply to county courts sad civil bill courts. In actions on
t, tte 19 nut of 20 proceeded to trial ; and the
saving would be great in those eases.
Mr. CROWDER thought the question one of some diffi-
culty, but was inclined to agree with the clause as it stood.
It was more in accordance with the general scope and tenor
of the bill. It differed from the bill which regulated the
English courts ; but he thought it desirable that the ex-
periment should have a fair trial, and then that the law of
the two countries should be arimilsted..

Mr. M. CHAMBERS thought the clause would mate-
rially humus expense, instead of diminishing it. In all
but the commonest sues, a special pleader or barrio'? must
be employed to draw the writ. The adoption of the clause
would lead to a renewal of all the evils of special and elabo-
rate pleading. The mere special and precise the writ was
made, the gre►ter the chance of the action being defeaded,
not on its merits. but on mere technicalities. He thought
the difficulties so formidable that if the amendment went to
a division be should vote is its favour.

Mr. FITZGERALD said he had no wish to continue tfa
prevent line of proceeding. If this amendment bad bon
adopted, there were others which he should hare proposed
to introduce, in order to secure the good working of the
bill. Fading that the opinion of the Irish lawyen was
against bins, he would not prase his amendment .to a
division. . _ .

The clause was then agreed to, as were the following
(dews down to clause ten.

On clause eleven, a conversation took place as to the no.
enmity of e iag a hill of particulars, In the case of money
demands, to the summons and plaint.
Mr. GROGAN, who had given notice of an amend-
ment to this effect, said he had done so in accordance with
a suggestion from the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin ;
but as Mr. Whiteside proposed certain alterations in the
clause, which might meet the views of those concerned, he
would not propose his amendment at present, but would
reserve the right of doing so afterwards.
Mr. KEOGH suggested that the clause should be peat-
posed.
Mr. WHITESIDE did not think there was any necessity
foe this. The clause, as amended, would give all the &dit-
ties that were desired.

TM clause wee then agreed to.
No further disetusioa arose until the committee reached
clause 20, width limits penonal actions to 20 years within
the cause of action ari•iag.
Mr. PITZOERALD moved the omission of the word
" judgment" from the clause, in order to exclude from its
operation actions brought on judgments previously obtained.
After a dieeussinn, the clause was agreed to, Mr. Wxirz-
sins undertaking to consider the objection, and introduce
words to meet it, if neeeroary.
On clause 32, which dispenses with personal ureice of
gammons in certain cases.
. .

Mr. FITZGERALD objected to the provision u calcu-
lated to work great injustice.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS said it appeared to him to be coo-
trery to the first principles of English law.
Kr. NAPIBR said the object of the clause was to get rid
of what swelled expenses without contributing to the ad-
ministration of justice.
Mr. G. BUTT said the provision was quite contrary to the
law of England. There would be no remedy in the cue of
abase. The law in Ireland ought to resemble the law in
England, and sufficient protection was given to the creditor
in subsequent clauses.
Mr. WHITESIDE said it was expressly provided that
there should be personal terries wherever it was practicable,
sad there was a precedent for the clause in the County
Coons Aet.

KEOGH thought it might obviate all ejection to
omit the words " personally resident."
Mr. CROWDER auggested the substitution of "scr-
awny" for " personally."
The ATTORN EY•O EN ER A L mast remind the com-
MOW that there was such a thing as legal residence.
XL WHITESIDE agreed to amend the clause by sub-
stituting for the words objected to " personally within the
jariedict ion."
The class., with this amendment, was then agreed to.
CI 33 to 37 were sleo agreed to.
On clause 38.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said on this clause he bad
a few words to say. It related to the much vexed question
of the verification of pleadings—a matter with regard to
which there was great difference of opinion. He knew
that sums of the best pleaders admitted that the introduc-
tion of such a practice was desirable; but, on the other
hand, high authorities, to whom he was dieproed to bow,
took •a different view. He greatly objected to the
multiplisation of oaths, thinking that oaths ouleht not
to be introduced except in eases where they were
essestial to the administration of justice. The more oaths

were multiplied, the more they -would be weakened. In
many ease, the clause would be a mere snare for the de-
fendant. Persona of tender isonacience would not like to
make oath, perhaps, w►en squired to do so ; whereto an
unscrupulous penes would have ao hesitation. If his hon.
and learned friend thought the clause would operate well,
be had no objection to its being passed, it, order that there
might be an opportunity of comparing the working of the
in Ireland with the practice in this country.
—RTYiIIITESIDE would be sorry to have the clause
passed on the ground just stated. (Hear, hear.) The
existing system was on under which counsel en both sides
were engaged in firing ad shots at each other. What he
wanted was that the matter put on the files of the court
should he the actual allegation of the defendant.
There was sanction for the clause in the code of New York.
The hon. and learned member then quoted from the code
in support of his assertion. He believed that human nature
was not so regardless of the sacredness of an oath as the
Attorney-General supposed. If the 'roiling of the clause
should prove satisfactory in Ireland, he would be glad to
lee England benefit by Irish experience. (Laughter.)
Mr. KEOGH was lodized to think that affidavits would
he swoon without mach consideration. As, however, his
milloartes in Ireland agreed, not with him but with the
inmosea of the bill, he should not oppose the clause.
Mr. FITZGERALD proposed to suhuitute a declaration
far an affidavit, and also to provide that the declaration
might be made by "say other person " than the party in-
terested "acquainted with the facts."
Mr. NAPIER would rather part with the clause altoge-
ther than inept the amendment. Any person might be
got to make a declaration.
Mr. HUME approved of discloses, on the ground that it
brought common sense to the aid ofiastiee. The learned gen-
tleman who introduced thehill said he hoped Eogland would
benefit by its operation. Be (Mr. Hume) hoped fleotliind
also would benefit by it. (Hear, hear.) He must express
hi+ thanks to those by whom the bill was introduced, and
he hoped it would be carried through. He hailed the bill
as a leader in the right direction.
36. 0. BUTT thought the form of the affidavit removed
the necessity for the wooed pert of the hon. and learned
member's (Mr. Fitsgerald's) amendment. All that the
party was required to do was to swear that his ease was
true to the net of hie informatinn and belief.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his objection to the
clause was not in the least degree founded on an expecta-
tion that it would isterfere with special pleading. If a
piety could be compelled to attest the substantial justice of
his cause, it was most desirable that he should be ; but be
feared that the clause would not ham that effect. As the
object was to obtain truthfulness in litigation he would not
object to the experiment being tried, but he firmly believed
that it would fail.
In reply to a question from Mr. WHITZSIDR,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said in the measure of
law reform which the goverament were about to propose,
an exemption from the obligation of taking oaths was to be
made in favour of objecting parties other:than " Quakers,
Moraviana, or Separatists."
Mr. WHITESIDE was not aware of the existence of any
suth parties.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said such persons had
come under his none..
Mr. FITZGERALD felt so strongly with regard to his
amendment that he must divide the committee up-in it.
Mr. GEORGE concurred with the hoe. and learned
member for Ennis (Mr. Fitzgerald) that it was desirable not
to make any addition to the existing oaths.
Mr. WHITESIDE said by the interpretation clause
"affidavit" was made to include affirmation and declare-
Wow, so that:the provision motioned by the Attorney-Gene-
ral was not necessary for the due operation of this bill.
Viscount MONCK considered the question one Of simple
natality. There was a morbid sentimentality with regard
to the taking of oaths ; and if the committee divided he'
• should vote for the clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not agree with hit
noble friend in what he had said with regard to send-
wientalitg. lie objected simply to the multiplictitiou of
oaths ; but, as a great experiment was about to be tried, he
thought an affidavit prelerable to a declaration.
Mr. V. SCULLY supported the amendment as the least
evil of the two.
Mr. FITZGERALD said, having ascertained that the
opinion of the committee was against him, he would with-
draw hie amendment.
The Awn woe then agreed to.
Cherito 39 to 63 were pared erith verbal atuistleteate.