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

~~~

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1853.

Measures are to be taken to carry the recom-
mendations of the Common-Law Commissioners
into practical operation even during the present
session. This is as it should be; and much credit
is due to Lord JOHN RUSSELL and his coadjutors
fcr the early avowal of their intentions, and the
promptitude displayed in carrying out the valu-
able suggestions offered for the further ameliora-
tion of the Superior Courts of Common Law. It
is indeed a subject on which carelessness or apathy
would not now be tolerated. We have become a
nation of Legal Reformers. The abuses and
grievances that sprung up during successive gene-
rations have been unsparingly exposed, and re-
medies have been pointed out by experienced and
skilful men, fully competent to deal with the sub-
ject, which, although not altogether adequate to
the exigencies of the case, are yet calculated to
remove some of the most glaring evils, and that
without endangering the entire system, or being
calculated to produce greater evils than those
about to be removed. But although speed and
energy were imperatively demanded, we do not
the less thank the Government for showing that
on the important subject of Legal Reform the
spur is not required to stimulate and excite them
into action.

We have already alluded at considerable length
to the recommendations relating to the " Trial by
Jury," the Constitution of the Juries, and other
points relating to Juries, especially the removal
of the power of coercing verdicts by withholding
necessary refreshments until the liealth, perhaps
the lives, of innocent gentlemen were imperilled,
..because they could not return a verdict in opposi-
tion to their honest and conscientious opinions.
In every suggestion of the Commissioners on this
nr,'important subject we fully and cordially concur.
eY have assigned reasons in support of the views
they have
passionate adoptedand
unprejudiced
that must convince every dis-
passionate person.
is another There
gsat
There
endation relating to
the.proceedin
may appear to the i • • , which, although it
trivial
importance
is
yetnitiated of comparatively
which the question atfrequentlyi the pivot on
There are few persons wsshouel eventually turns.
Superior Courts, or witnessed have attended the
glen between the intellectual gladejaforensic strug-
not occasionally noticed with surprisetors, who have
the zeal and
energy displayed in endeavouring to obt •
am cc the
right of opening" the cause--the candid admis-
sions, the apparently injurious and uncalled-for
concessions that are freely made, in order to show
that the "onus probandi" lies on the party
whose first act is to remove the chief difficulties
from his adversary. The astonished auditor, who
Advocate,
marvels at the amiable candour of the Ad
little knows the vast importance of having the
first and thelast word—of colouring the case during
t-
the original statement—so as to make everydoub

ful point appear in the most favourable light,
depreciating the matters on which his opponent
May rely, and creating a natura,l bias in the minds
of the Arbiters, even before a Aticle of evidence
has been brought forward. But the last word is
of still greater moment, more especially since the
I testimony of the parties has been admissible. Any
hesitation or discrepancy elicited in the course of
a stringent and searching cross-examination was
seized 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 matter in a correct point
of view—hut 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 "right of reply." How
often has a defendant's counsel—to the horror
and astonishment of his indignant client—steadily
refused to produce a witness to rebut evidence,

the value of which he endeavours laboriously to
reduce, when he -might distinctly and unequivo-
cally negative it. He, however, is doing his duty
.to his- client,' for he is but• too painfully aware of
the impression that may be made by his astute
opponent' on other doubtful points, should he
abandon the vantage ground he has attained by
giving the general reply to his adversary. Both
parties, then, were subjected to serious inconve-
niences by reason of .this regulation. 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 the
Jury twice, whether witnesses be called for the
defence or not—that the leading counsel should have
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 twice; first, on opening his
case, and again at the close 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 ultimate 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
case 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 •worth y•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 will get rid of them, as Mr.
M. O'CONNELL advised, by " cutting the painter,"
and dissolving all connexion. between Church and
State. Thanks to Spoonerism 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, fully 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 BULL 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 MADIAIS, 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 Sir ROBERT PEEL, with
all our Liberal. Statesmen, and most even of
those professing Conservative principles, have been
of one mind on this point.
It is in the face of this now almost universal
feeling that Mr. SPOONER sees fit to snub the
Roman Catholics on the Maynooth question.
Having failed in his grand attempt on the endow-
ment of 30,0001., lie 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 vote
for repairs. The vote was, made as galling as it
could be to the Catholics, for Mr. WILLIAMS
having proposed to disallow with it 256/. ss. Bd.
for the " repairs of the chaplain's house in Dublin
Castle," " the Royal Chapel and apartments in
basement," and " Irishtown Church," this amend-
ment was lost, and the repairs of Maynooth alone
disallowed. Now, it is not really to be wondered
at, if this become the signal for an ecclesiastic
running fight throughout the Committee of Supply.
That a majority of 37 should vote whole windows,
safe walls, and water-tight roofs for Protestants,
and a majority of 20 refuse the same mercies for
Catholics,
in the same
was more than most of us could stomach
Position.
combining with then A the
t. Catholic members for
blame Mr. rid. We cannot, therefore,
wards, to ferret out everyil-State-Churchmen after-
and to end with an c ap Laney,
Regium Donum. We are rather upon the Irish
grand chaPrrogteesta t h 1 '
other hand, that their langaa, surprised, cal the
10 was so moo orate