The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT:

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The hou,- met at live o'clock.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition against
the dog-cart nuisance in the provinces.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented petitions
from Sheffield, Exeter, and other places, for closing
public houses on Sunday ; also, a petition from the
Lord Provost, magistrates, and council of Edinburgh,
against public executions.
EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULA.R ESTATES MA-
NAGEMENT (1854) BILL.

On the motion for going into committee upon this bill,
The Earl of DERBY said it was worth the considera-
tion of the Government to inquire before proceeding
with this measure how far the existing commission had
fulfilled its original intentions. He was given to under-
stand that the transference of the management of these
estates into the hands of the commission had placed
lessees in a less advantageous position than they for-
merly were with regard to the renewal of leases.
Earl GRANVILLE observed that it was an inconve-
nient course to discuss that question before going into
committee.

The Bishop of OXFORD pointed out the necessity of
referring the bill to a select committee, and concluded
by making a motion for that purpose.
After a short conversation the amendment of the
right rev, prelate was agreed to, and the bill was re-
ferred to a select committee.

DANGEROUS ANIMALS BILLS.
Lord LONDESBOROUGH moved the second read-
ing of this bill, which he explained was directed especially
to the dangerous practice of employing dogs in drawing
carts, which was still carried on to a considerable extent
in the country districts, and which he believed to be one

great cause of canine madness.
The Earl of HARDWICKE admitted the nuisance
arising from the practice to which his noble friend ad-
verted, but he questioned how far they would be justi-
fied in preventing the use of dogs, which he believed in
proportion to their strength were as fitted for the pur-
poses of draught as any other animal, in drawing carts,
especially when it was recollected that a very consider-
able number of persons who could not afford to employ
horses were enabled by means of their dog carts to earn
their subsistence. He should oppose the bill.
Lord BERNERS supported the bill.
The Earl of CHICHESTER believed the practice of
employing dogs for drawing carts occasioned may serious
accidents, and so far as it prohibited that practice he
approved of the principle of the bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW suggested that the fact that
a similar bill had passed the House of Commons and
had been thrown out by their lordships by a very small
majority in a previous session, ought to induce them to
give the measure a favourable consideration. He should
vote for the second reading, and in committee would
move its operation be extended to Ireland. _

The Eail of CARNARVON spoke in favour of the
bill, which he thought was calculated to put down a great
public nuisance. It was only the lowest, most degraded,
and most brutalised class of the community that em-
ployed dogs as beasts of draught.
Lord REDESDALE thought that the bill was not
calculated even to carry out its own principle. By its
provisions two credible witnesses were to go and make
oath before a justice of the peace of the madness of a
dog, which in the meantime was to be left running about
and doing as much mischief as possible. Again, there
was a provision that after a dog was taken with madness
all the dogs of the district were to be muzzled. Under
this provision if some nervous persons saw a dog running
about with his tongue out and looking languid, the hounds
would have to turn out for the next day's hunt with their
mouths tied up. (Laughter.)
After a few words from the Earl of LANESBOROUGII,
The gallery was cleared for a division ; no division,
however, took place, the bill being withdrawn.
SECOND COMMON LAW PROCEDURE (1854)

BILL.
On our readmission to the gallery we found their lord
ships in committee, and
Lord ST. LEONARDS complaining that in the clauses
of this bill with regard to arbitration there was no provi-
sion made in accordance with the recommendation of the
Common Law Commissioners, who stated in their report
that means ought to be taken to prevent frequent ad-
journments of arbitrators. The greatest misfortune
which could happen to a man sending him before an
arbitrator, who was tied to no time within which to
make his report. In such a case the arbitrator only sat
when it suited his convenience, and then very often it
was impossible to get counsel to attend, other appoint-
ments keeping them away. If this part of the bill were
persevered in he should propose to insert some time
within which an arbitrator ought to make his award.
The next objectionable part of the measure was contained
in the 17th clause, by which it was proposed to enact
that if, at the expiration of 12 hours, 10 or 11 of
the jurymen should agree, the verdict of such 10 or 11
should be taken as the verdict of all. The Common Law
Comme-sioners had reported against any alteration of the
unanimity required by the present law, but the committee
of that house had proposed that after twelve hours' deli-
beration the assent of ten of the jury should be sufficient.
He, not without reluctance, assented to the idea that
after twelve hours' deliberation the unanimity of eleven
ehould be sufficient, for it might undoubtedly happen
that that one juror standing out would prevent justice
being done. When, however, two jurymen concurred
in opposing the rest, it was quite a different thing
to say that the verdict of the remaining ten should be
taken. He should therefore propose so to alter the 17th
section that the verdict of not mess than eleven jurors—
the jury having previously been shut up twelve hours—
should be taken. The next clause to which he objected
was that relating to oaths. This clause dispensed wi
the necessity of a man taking an oath provided he had
a conscientious objection to it. The commissioners,
being divided in opinion, had not reported upon this
point. He (Lord St. Leonards) could not at that time
say how far he was prepared to go in relieving a man's
conscientious scruples with regard to the taking of an
oath, but he objected in the most positive manner to the
question being at ail dealt with iu the present bill. It
was a subject of very great importance and ought to be
brought before the legislature in a substantive and dis-
tinct form, and not mixed up in the details of a bill like
the present. Nor was this the only ground of objection
to this clause. It was proposed to leave it to the judge
to say whether or not a man should take an oath, upon
that party's bare statement that he had a conscientious
scruple to do so. Thus the duty of considering whether a
man ought to take an oath ornot, was cast upon the judge,
without his having any means of arriving at a just con-
clusion. Beyond these points, there was nothing in the
bill to which he directly objected ; at the same time,
the measure was of such great importance that he
would venture to detain the committee while he drew
their lordships' attention to the branches of the law
with which it was most intimately connected. The
measure, without doubt, had its origin in the feeling
which had prevailed to some extent, that there ought to
be a fusion of law and equity. That fusion had been, it
was said, effected in America, and had worked well.
But their lordships ought to be told what the so-called
"fusion" in America was. It was little more than this,
instead of two judges, one administering law in one
court, and another equity in another, there was one
judge who sat in one court and possessed a sort of
divided existence, at one moment saying. " Now I'm
law," at another, " Now I'm equity." He (Lord St.
Leonards) must candidly confess that he saw nothing to
recommend such a " fusion." In Scotland, however,
law and equity was really fused, and what was the re-
sult ? He wished to say nothing against the learned
lords who administered justice in that country; indeed
he believed they were quite competent to fulfil the duties
of the position in which they were placed, and he be-
lieved, moreover, that it was the system only that was
to blame, but it was impossible to sit day after day in
that house without seeing that the number of appeals
to their lordships from the English and Irish courts
was as nothing compared to those from the Scotch
courts. At the present moment the numbers stood thus :
for every one Irish appeal there were eleven Scotch ap-
peals. Here then was an example in their own house
to warn their lordships that the fusion of law and equity
did not work well. At the same time there were
some things in which the equitable jurisdiction might,
with advantage, be extended to a common law tri-
bunal, but there were 'others iu which the very differ-
ence of these tribunals prevented their extension to both
courts of law and equity. At law, speaking generally,
a man could have no other remedy than an action for
damages, but at equity the very contract concerning
which a bill was filed was enforced. Equity did not
give damages, but compelled the defaulting party to do
that which he had contracted to do. Equity aellslokinnntwern-
fered to prevent a wrong doing. Of this_ w
The
instance occurred in the case of Mdlle. Wag_netro-
Court of Chancery could not compel that lady sing,where
she it compelled her not to sing elsewhere than
she had contracted to do so. Had she ventured to sing
at Mr. Gye's theatre she would haveenbiefienn iemrpfnrrismoannende
b .
Now, if the power of decreeing.wo
were °even to a court laow it ulaido noPgood. That
court had not the pro per officers to see such a decree
carried into execution, while, on the other hand, the
machinery of the equity courts was especially adapted to
that object. The bill enabled a court of law to compel
a discovery, both of documents and of facts, and to
grant exparte injunctions. In short, it would turn the
courts of law into courts of equity without giving them
any of the equity machinery, and the result would be to
create a conflict of opinion between the common law
judges, and also between the courts of common law and
the courts of equity. The commissioners never in-
tended to go the length that this bill went. As the
bill was originally brought in, the defence was to be
an undoubted defence in equity, and the replication
was to be an undoubted equitable replication. The
changes proposed were of such a nature that be felt
bound to direct their lordships' attention to them. He
would take a particular instance—that of a common
contract for the sale of an estate. Suppose A should
sell an estate to B, and agree to produce the title on the
7th of May, and to give possession on the 11th of May.
As the law stood, those dates were of the essence of the
contract ; the law knew nothing of time. If the title
were not ready by the day, the purchaser was freed ; and
if either party failed to fulfil his part of the contract the
remedy was an action for damages. In equity the cage
wasjust the reverse. Although time might be of the
essence of the contract, yet ordinarily speaking it was
not ; and if one party brought an action for damages,
the other party filed a bill in equity. Well, now, if
this bill passed, the court of law would have two rules.
He did not say that if the country determined that one
court should decide both law equity, there would not
be a great saving both of time and money ; but he sandno
that they must give courts machinery to carry In
effect the duties which they imposed upon theme.tailn.
the case which he had stated, the courts olfelfat ,
wtorde
mg their present jurisdiction, were to be
upon equitable grounds against their own rule. If he