The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-01 00:00:00

LAW OF EVIDENCE, &c., BILL.

Sir F. KELLY, in moving the second reading of this
bill, said that it would be unnecessary to detain hon. mem-
bers by liny lengthened observations. The bill contained
eight clauses, to five or six of which he believed there
would be no opposition on the part of Government, but he
thought that the third clause, which proposed to deal with
the subject of criminal evidence, would necessarily be open
to objection, and he suggested to the hon. member (Mr.
Scully) to postpone the bill(Criminal Cases Evidence Bill)
which stood on the paper for second reading this day until
the whole subject could receive an ample discussion, and
for that purpose he proposed to have the committee on his
(Sir F. Kelly's) bill not to take place for three months.
Mr. SCULLY said that he had no intention to oppose
the second reading of this bill or to press on his own. Tha
object of this bill was to raise the question as to the prin-
ciple of the law relating to evidence in criminal cases as re-
garded the cross-examination of witnesses. He accused
the Attorney-General of not being a legal reformer, and
he thought that this question should not be entrusted
solely to the consideration of lawyers, who were stereo-
typed in their notions. He admitted that he himself had
at one time belonged to that class, but he had rooted out
his prejudices. (A laugh.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he agreed with hon.
members who considered that this question should not be
discussed in a party spirit, because it related to a most
important subject and one of national interest. (Hear,
hear.) There could be no doubt that it must be the inte-
rest of all parties, no matter what were their political sen-
timents, to consider carefully and dispassionately the sub-
ject of an improvement of law. Speaking on the part of
the Government, he could state that he had no opposition
to offer to some of the clauses of the bill, but he strongly
objected to others, and he thought that clause which re-
lated to effecting an alteration in the law of
evidence in criminal cases opposed to the principle
of the constitution of this country. It would tend to
assimilate the practice in this country with the tortuous
one that prevailed on some points of the continent. In
what he said he did not wish for a moment to cast any
imputation on the sincerity of the hon. and learned mem-
ber (Sir F. Kelly), and he wished it to be understood
that the Lord Chancellor was in favour of the views
which he (the Attorney-General) stated were enter-
tained by the Government in regard to this subject.
He thought the subject would receive a full discussion in
committee, and that ample time would be afforded for that
object.

Mr. DUNLOP objected to some points of the bill.
Mr. M'MAHON thought that this subject should be
discussed in a committee of the whole house. It was a
matter merely for the consideration of lawyers,who would
be influenced merely by their professional views as re-
garded the legal admissibility of evidence, while jus-
tices of peace had some opportunities of judging of the
value of any particular class of evidence.
Mr. G. HARDY considered no case had been made out
for an alteration in the present state of the law in regard
to evidence. He strongly objected to a person being
allowed to give evidence when he was not a compellable
witness.

After some further discussion the bill was read a second
time.

THE CRIMINAL CASES (EVIDENCE) BILL.
Mr. SCULLY postponed the second reading of this
bill.

COMMON LAW COURTS (FEES) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
FELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR EVIDENCE AND

PRACTICE BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
CHURCH ATTENDANCE ON SUNDAY.
On the motion for going into committee of the whole
house,

Mr. CLIFFORD moved that the chairman be directed
to move the house, that leave be given to bring in a bill
for the abolition of fines for non-attendance at a place of
Divine Worship on Sunday. He said that the object of the
bill was to repeal certain statutes passed in the
time of Queen Elizabeth, James the First, and
subsequently, which imposed fines for non-attendance
at places of public worship on Sundays. The
intention of these different enactments was to compel Roman
Catholics to conform to the Protestant form of worship.
That object, he need no inform hon. members, had entirely
failed ; and it was equally unnecessary to state that any
such enactments as those to which his bill referred would
not be tolerated in the present day. By the Actof William
and Mary there was some relaxation in regard to the ques-
tion as regarded Roman Catholics, but it was not until the
reign of George 111. that these fines were swept away in
reference to Roman Catholics. Having adverted to recent
convictions for non-attendance at public worship in Lan-
cashireinthenaenwdepYeoperksre,hhiree
cownhtieehndheadvtehbaete
nthessoefucilasyesdissheusowseedd
the necessity of legislation on this subject, and he believed
that the infliction of penalties as in the cases alluded to
were very repugnant to the feelings of the Protestant clergy
at large.
Lord HOTHAM said that in one of the cases alluded to
—namely, in Yorkshire, the conviction was nominally for
non-attendance at church, but in reality for a breach of
contract by a servant to his employer. It was the practice
in that part of the country in engaging servants to make it
a condition that they should attend the service at the
party in Yorkshire, who was engaged by a
Esta-
blished Church. This was the case with respect to
who the
at-
tached much importance to his attendance at con the person who
ladyh
u
r
c
h
.
He
econtended that there was no hardship
engaged himself, when it was
a service to which a certain conditiont.=
wade was that he
only defence which the party in questioniheattllcinihedte. enter The
wished with his
considered he had a right to do what
olnalwwasith
t he had entered
rship on Sundays.
into a contract to attend divine WO
Mr. NASH supported the bill.
not aware this question would
hire on Sunday, but he did not deny that
Sir G. GREY said he was
and that the Act of Parlia-
lieved the facts were as stated,
wentauthority to impose a penalty
magistrate full
ment gave the t t
fringed his con rac .
on the party who hartd
the
hui,
on the ground that the
be brought under the consgited,tion of the house. He be-
Mr. LOCKE supp_
to be compelled to go to a place of worship
who ought not
RIDGES.
on a Sundayhouse having went into committee, and leave being
existing statuitfehsoin-otbe
jie-feetreedd
twoitdhotshoe. liberty of the subject,
River Thames, by
The .
laftonredthtehefreoeb
g i vmern.
the
Alderman
METROPOLITANbr bring
communicationsin the bill , then
a across
orrr
sec
TOLL
Lu
tnaLh resumed.
BRIDGES.
.
SALMONS asked leave to introduce a
bill to facilitate the traffic of the metropolis, and to im-
potleprovejuescet oo ff thetlle
tniiinn.g
Tthheeprhensnen. tmteomll-bberirdegxeps
bill, and contrasted the superior system thatprevailed
Paris on this subject. in

Leave was given to bring in the bill.
WRITS REGISTRATION, &c. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. DUNLOP asked leave to bring in a bill to improve
the system of registration of writs relative to land in Scot-
land, and to amend the law relating to inhibitions and
adjudications.
Leave was granted.
PARK LANE AND PICCADILLY THOROUGHFARE
Lord ELCHO moved for a copy of all correspondence
which had passed from the year 1856 inclusive between
the Lords of the Treasury, the First Commissioner of
Works, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and the
Metropolitan Board of Works, on the subject of any pro-
posed thoroughfare between Park-lane and Piccadilly.—
Ordered.