The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-25 00:00:00

, clop

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1853.

Measures are to bo taken to carry the recom-
mendations of the Cammon-Law Commissioners
into practical operation even during the present
e ession. This is as it should be; and much credit
i s due to Lord JOHN RUSSELL and his coadjutors
for the early avowal o f their intentions, and the
promptitude displayed in carrying out the valu-
able suggestions offere d for the further ameliora-
ti,on of the Superior Courts of Common Law. It
is indeed a subject on which carelessness or apathy
liv ould not now be tolc (rated. We have become a
xi; ition of Legal Rei!ormers. The abuses and
gi ievances that sprung. up during successive gene-
ra tions have been um rparingly exposed, and re-
it tedies have been pointed out by experienced and
kilful men, fully competent to deal with the sub-
, ject, which, although not altogether adequate to
the exigencies of the use, are yet calculated to

remove some of the m ost glaring evils, and that

• without endangering the entire system, or being
ilculated to produce greater evils than those
al7 bout to be removed. But although speed and
e z iergy were imperatively demanded, we do not
tli e less thank the Go v ernment for showing that
or ► the important suls,ject of Legal Reform the
spur is not required to. stimulate and excite them
in. to action.

We have already all tided at considerable length
to the recommendationgs relating to the " Trial by
Jv try," the Constitutic e i of the Juries, and other
po into relating to Jll3 :lies, especially the removal
of the power of coercing verdicts by withholding
Tic t essary refreshments; until the health, perhaps
1;i to lives, of innocent gentlemen were imperilled,
b °cause they could not; return a verdict in opposi-
..
ti:Ln to their honest aE td conscientious opinions.
r
I apeovraetry suggestion of the Commissioners on this
ri r,
hey nt subject we f ally and cordially concur.
tl. ey have adopted
have
assigned rea eons in support of the views
a tha t must convince every dis-
pi assionate an
another
eked person.
There is
an
tt se proceedings at rthe re(.ommendation relating to
trial, which, although it
Is ay Wear to thes
ye t
it ,itiated of comparatively
ti •ivial im i
portance, frssetiqeuelectleyilttuhs
le
Ipyivtoutrnosn. w hich. the question at i
7 here are few persons
aftoreric
who havestrug-
S uperior Courts, or -wit nestled the attended the
g lea between the intellectual gla
1 tot occasionally noticed. with surpriseerstl who have
zeal and.
4 3nergy displayed in oilt :wonting to obtain " the
' right of opening" the c Anse—the candid admis
sions, the apparently injurious and uncalled-for
concessions that are fre( alya
mde, in order to shoe
t that the "onus _robs tat" lies on the party
whose
first act is to reri cove the chief difficulties
1
from his adversary. Thai astonished auditor, who
a thocate
marvels at the amiable c; Indotur
nc e of having th,
e
little knows the vasty ilnoiof e Adv
the case during
first and the last word---Q f makecolour
eve doubt-
the original statement—, .so as to ry

ful point appear in the most favourable light,
depreciating the matters on which his opponent
may rely, and creating a natural bias ile
ev
n the minds
of the Arbiters, even before a partic ofevidence
has been brought forward. But the last word is
of still greater moment, more especially since the
testimony of the parties has been admissible. Any
hesitation or discrepancy elicited in the course of
a stringent and searching cross-examination was
sei*ed on with an iron grasp, and subjected to the
most severe and apparently unanswerable com-
ments. A simple explanation, a few brief sen-
tences, might place the wafer in a correct point
of view—but that explanation could not be ren-
dered, those sentences uttered, and the party not
only saw his cause lost, but his character irre-
trievably damaged, through the absurd rigour of
the regulations adopted by the Court.
How frequently has it occurred that the plain-
tiff has refused to produce evidence on a particular
point, and thus exposed himself to the imputation
of concealment, of withholding the testimony essen-
tial to the clearing up of his case, and removing
every doubt and difficulty—the real object being
merely to compel his adversary to produce a wit-
ness, and thus give the " rigkt of reply." How
often has a defendant's counsel—to the horror
and astonishment of his in, ! s ant client--steadily
refused to produce a witn•v: to rebut evidence,
the value of wllich he enddavours laboriously to
reduce, when he might distinctly and unequivo-
cally negative it. He, however, is doing his duty
to his client, for he is butptoo painfully aware of
the impression that may be made by his astute
opponent on other doubtfta points, should he
abandon the vantage ground he has attainedßoh by
giving the general reply to Na 'adversary. t
parties, then, were subjected to serious inconve-
niences by reason of this rlation. The Com-
missioners are, therefore, desirous of removing
the grievance, and, so far as practicable, placing
the litigants on equal terms. They recommend
that each side should be allowed to address tke
Jury twice, whether witnesses be called for the
defence or not—that the leading counsel shouldhave
the opportunity of explaining away or accounting
for any discrepancies between the evidence actu-
ally given and the opening statement. With
that object they propose ;.! That the counsel for
the second party should. 'have the opportunity
of addressing the Jury twicv first, on opening his
case, and again at the cloe of his evidence, and
that the counsel who begins, in the event of his
opponent not announcing his. intention to adduce
evidence, should, in like manner, have the oppor-
tunity of addressing, the Jury a second time at the
close of his case."
Another and a very important point relating to
the proceedings at the trial is, that a power of
adjournment is given to the presiding Judge, sub-
ject to such conditions as to costs and otherwise
as the justice of the case may require. Hitherto,
if a Jury was once sworn in, the record could not
be withdrawn except by mutual consent. A ver-
dict should be given, or a non-suit submitted to,
except, as we have stated, by mutual consent, or
when there was no prospect of a verdict, and the
health of some one or more of the Jurymen had
been endangered. The stringency of this rule
frequently led to a failure of justice, or, at all
events, to ruinous expenses and very vexatious
delay. After the most elaborate preparations had
been made, briefs prepared, counsel feed, and wit-
nesses in attendance, it was at the last mo-
ment, after the trial had commenced, dis-
covered that a link was wanting in the chain of
evidence—some formal deficiency which it would
require some days to repair. Perhaps one attest-
ing witness to the execution of some document
might be absent from ill-health, or some unavoid-
able casualty. Perhaps that the Judge might de-
cide that the correct stamp had not been im-
pressed on the document, and that, therefore, it
could not be admitted in evidence until the omis-
sion had been supplied. In any of these cases,
and in a variety of others, too numerous to par-
ticularise, all the previous preparations should go
for nothing, and the ulftwate decision be post-
pened for an indefinite period, from causes not in
the slightest degree affecting the substantial merits
of the suit. These evils will henceforward be
remedied by allowing the Judge to adjourn the
,oeie for such time and on such conditions as he
may think proper ; and -many expensive and
tedious applications for new trials will thus be
averted. Every Legal Reformer, every disinterested
person, must cordially concur in these valuable
recommendations of the Commissioners in refer-
ence to the proceedings at the trial. There are
others of no less importance relating to the Law
of Evidence, to which our space will not admit of
allusion this day, but which are well worthy of
careful and attentive consideration.

One way or another Convocation will certainly
be rendered unnecessary. The House of Com-
mons will either become the grand arena of theo-
logical discussions, or wit apt rid of them, as Mr.
M. O'CONNELL advised, bASP cutting the painter,"
and dissolving all connexicon. between Church and
State. Thanks to Spoonetistm for this pleasant
dilemma. It is quite clear to every one but
themselves that Lord SHAFTESBURY and Mr.
SPOONER are serving the guns of the Anti-State-
Churchmen most admirably. If they really prefer
the alternative of disendowing the State Church
to that of a trivial endowment to Popery, why let
them go on. They, as -well as other legislators,
have a full right to enforce their own views as
best they may, and take the results of discussion.
Let them, however, fay understand that the
public mind of the whole nation, a small section
of bigots excepted, is rapidly adopting the prin-
ciple of religious equality. While people of com-
mon sense laugh to hear such orators as Mr. LUCAS
and other supporters of the Duke of TUSCANY
preaching their creed, they do not laugh at the
creed itself. Religious equality is a perfectly
JOHN Bum, conception. It is that fair play which
is so dear to his heart. Probably nothing has in-
terfered with its having become generations ago
the settled practice of the nation, so much as the
unfortunate union between Popery and anti-
national politics. Dissenters were for a long time
excluded from civil privileges, solely because it
was held necessary to keep from power the co-reli-
gionists of MARY and PHILIP, and the professors
of a creed which requires implicit obedience to a
hated foreign Bishop. Dissenters themselves
were content to lie under disabilities rather
than hazard (as they thought) the danger of
actually witnessing what they had only seen the
pictures of in Fox's " Book of Martyrs." All
that feeling is now nearly vanished. Indeed, but
for Tuscany and the MAnws, and Cardinal WISE-
MAN with his new Hierarchy, it would have quite
died away. The universal sentiment amongst
honest and practical men now is, that all creeds
must be dealt with alike. RICHARD CoDBEN,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and .fir ROBERT PEEL, with
all our Liberal Stateswen7 and most even of
those professing Conservative principles, have been
of one mind on this point.
It is in the face of *IA now Almost universal
feeling that Mr. SPOONER sees tt to snub the
Roman Catholics on the Maynooth question.
Having failed in his grand attempt on the endow-
ment of 30,0001., he had the good luck, in the
Committee of Supply on Thursday evening, to
mulct the college to the amount of 1,237/. 135.,
a sum which the Government proposed to Tote
for repairs. The vote was made as galling as It
could be to the Catholics, for Mr. WILLIAME4
having proposed to disallow with it 2561. ss. Bd.
for the " repairs of the chaplain's house in Dublin
Castle," "the Royal CIVI and apartments in
basement," and " IrishtoVurch," this amend-
ment was lost, and the r of Maynooth alone
runningTi
disallowed. Now, it is not -seallpto be wondered
at, if this become the signal. for an ecclesiastic
and fight throughout the Committee of Supply.
safe
a majority of 37 should vote whole windows,
Catholics, was
walls, and water-tight roofs for Protestants,
r. Luc')
majority of 20 refuse the same mercies for
more. than most of us could stomach
in the same
LUCAS and
We cannot, therefore,
blame :m
combining with tliaond the Catholic members for
wards, to ferret out Anti-State-Churchmen after-
and to end with every protestant chaplaincy,
a grand charge
Regium Donum. We are rather aur-sri upon he Irish
on the
other hand, that their sed,
language Was po moderate

This may, no—doubt, be attributed, to their con-
sciousness that the refusal of the 1,2371. , was
worth to them fully ten times its amount. They
would not have minded procuring the refusal if
they could have done it, and for the same reason
as a beggar on the pavement hires another wo-
man's baby. Nice little slices, and some large
ones, too, of ecclesiastical bounty were therefore
mercilessly brought to light in the State Larder,
and the right of the favoured Church to these
savoury tit-bits pertinaciously denied. Great,
indeed, was the variety with which the House
was entertained. It seemed much like an irrup-
tion of her Ladyship of the parlour into a sud-
denly-suspected kitchen. Now, a suspicious crust
in the shape of 501. each to two poor clergymen
of Heligoland, who passed for rich on that annual
sum ; now some luscious pastry-4001. a year for
a chaplaincy in Gambia, and as much for another
in the Falkland Islands, with a population of 200
only—looked very doubtful ; presently a glorious
luxury in the form of 7901. a year, and 951. 15s.
for contingencies, turned up at Hong Kong !
What could that mean ? The under-cook explained
that Hong Kong was a very bad place for the
health, and that, accordingly, generous diet was
essential, and X. s. d. was a most approved recipe for
miasma. Even Mr. LUCAS and Mr. MIALL sympa-
thised with the sufferers, and did not divide. And
thus the rummaging of shelves and cupboards went
on, till at length a door was opened, and not less
than 38,4921. worth of loaves and fishes, laid by to
quiet " Nonconforming, Seceding, and Protestant
Dissenting Ministers" in Ireland, were exposed
to view. Sir J. V. SHELLEY and Mr. BRIGHT
denounced it as became them. Lord C. HAMIL-
TON, Member for Tyrone, flew at the Man of
Peace, on behalf of his injured constituents, with
all the fury of wronged honesty. Sir J. YOUNG
declared his belief that, if religious endowments
were withdrawn, the very name of religion would
soon die out of the land. Mr. COBDEN and Lord
JOHN followed, however, with calmer counsels,
agreeing very much in their main views, though
voting differently. Both argued that to equal
dealing by all sects the country must soon come.
Both preferred endowments for religion, Mr.
COBDEN, however, chiefly, he thought, because he
had been brought up in the Church ; Lord JOHN,
from higher reasons of State. Mr. COBDEN, there-
fore, voted against the grant, as the House had
refused the Maynooth grant for repairs; Lord JOHN
voted for it to keep the Presbyterians in good po-
litical temper.
One remark in his own homely style, Mr.
COBDEN chopped, which deserves the attention of
all the hot, one-sided religionists of this country
and of all countries. "He had always gone to
Church himself. His mother took him there, and,
as a general rule, he thought they all went where
their mothers had taken them." Yes, fully nine-
tenths of every community owe their religion to
their mothers ; they go " where there mothers took
them." There is a world of anti-bigotry in that

simple fact.
The furious and bitter apostate.may, scornfully
repudiate the implication ; but the crowd of fol-
lowers whom he apostrophises, of what religion
are they ? Of the religion of their mothers. It
might well soften the mischievous asperities of
warfare between sects if each would remember
the educational, the domestic origin of their faith.
Account for it as we will—and it is by no means
difficult to do so—the broad fact is before every
one, that Dissenters' children grow up- for the
most part Dissenters ; Roman Catholics' children
Roman Catholics ; and the children of Church-
men Churchmen. We commend this plain truth
to the notice of the Protestant Alliance.