The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-23 00:00:00

man clearly pointed out the nature of the proceed-
ings that have taken place, and are of daily
occurrence, that there is not only military posses-
'ion taken of Wallachia and Moldavia, but that
veu the civil administration of those pLovi !ices
has been in a great degree, if not altogether,
assumed, and that the invaders are fortifying the
principal towns, and also the different military
stations on the Danube—that offensive and insult-
ing communications have been addressed not only
to the Porte, but to the Western Powers, and a
crusade preached to the ignorant Muscovites in
terms fitted for home consumption, in terms
much stronger than those generally circulated,
(insolent and unwarrantable as they must be
admitted to be), for the purpose of exciting reli-
gious animosities and inflaming the fanaticism of
the Russian serfs ; while the Turks are kept in a
state of smouldering indignation that may at any
time burst into a flame, and which may afford
pretexts for further aggressions on the part of the
AVTOCRA T.

Under such circumstances, surely Parliament
has a right to know the steps that have been
taken, the pretexts put forward on the part
of Great Britain, and to judge whether
they are adequate to the magnitude of
the crisis and the extent of the emergency. But
now we are aaked for still further forbear-
ance, on the ground, not that the negotiations
have nearly terminated, and that a definite ar-
rangement
may be speedily anticipated, but be-
cause they have scarcely commenced (!)—because,
on account of the necessary delays, they cannot
be expected to be in a condition to be laid before
the House ! And is this an answer with which
the British Parliament will be contented ? What
would be said in Congress if such a reply were
given by the Foreign Minister, on a matter in
which the honour or the interests of the humblest
American citizen was concerned ? They certainly
do these things differently in the United States.
And yet peace is not endangered by the pub-
licity, by the calm and deliberate expression
of the unflinching determination of a free
nation, expressed through its representatives.
Away, then, with the farce that has too long
been tolerated. Away with the affectation of
mystery, which will only be considered by the
AUTOCRAT and his advisers as a further token
of English subservience—as an encouragement to
perseverance in the reckless course which they
have adopted. It is time that we shook off cur
apathy—that we exhibited our zeal and energy
befitting the great importance of the subject.
Opportunities will arise for at least enforcing a
discussion, and we trust that Mr. LAYARD, or
some other Honourable Gentleman, will avail
himself thereof, to remove the disgrace from
England. If the motion should be rejected, the
division list will be an exceedingly instructive
document, well worthy the attentive perusal of
every person entrusted with the elective franchise
throughout the length and breadth of the land.

When Lord JOHN RUSSELL announced, in May

. .
last, that " measures would be forthwith taken
to carry the recommendations of the Common
Law Commissioners into practical operation during
the present session," we, in common with the en-

re of the " Fourth Estate" and the community

in general, bestowed what was then believed to be
well-merited commendation for the zeal and ala-
crity displayed by her MAJESTY'S Government on
a subject of such vital importance to the well-
being of society, and on which such perfect una-
nimity existed among all classes, the professional
as well as the non-professional. This promptitude
was the more laudable, inasmuch as the pressing
business before Parliament might have afforded a
plausible excuse for delay. It might have been
considered that her MAJESTY'S Ministers would
have sufficiently discharged their duty if the pro-

mired measure had been speedily introduced and

then referred to a select committee, so that all its
provisions might have been maturely digested and
considered ; and if the most urgent, on which little
if any difference of opinion could have existed,
were passed before the prorogation, leaving all
that were likely to provoke discussion and to in-
volve any considerable demand on the public
time, to stand over until next year. The energy
exhibited by the Noble Lord was, however, not
the less welcome because unexpected, because of
his own free will and accord without waiting for
the application of the " pressure from without,"

' or any other stimulant to excite him to action, he
had freely and voluntarily promised to dispose of
a subject which could, under any circumstances
be postponed, although the procrastination would
be attended with some loss of character to the
Joint-Stock Administration, and injury to the
public. His bidding for popularity was, how-
ever, thankfully accepted, and for the time being
he received the credit to which he would have been
entitled had his undertaking been fully and fairly
carried out. Let us see, however, in what man-
ner the pledge thus freely and willingly given in
the face of the assembled Commons 'of the United
Kingdom has been redeemed.

Since that pledge was thus readily given nearly
two mouths have elapsed, and nothing, literally
nothing, has taken place with respect to the inte-
resting and important subject. While the popu-
lar branch of the Legislature has been bored with

the prosy orations of the President of the Board
of Control, and the tedious and protracted discus-
sions on the Government of India, a matter which
knight, and ought to have been adjourned for fur-

ther information, the amelioration of the pro-
cedure anti practice of the Superior Courts of Com-
mon Law, was suffered to remain in abeyance,
without any single step being taken in advance.
The most gross and culpable apathy and negli-
gence was manifested on a topic which possessed
so many intrinsic claims for a speedy and satisfac-
tory arrangement—not of the points in dispute,
for there was no dispute or difference in relatiOn
thereto, but of the admitted defects in the adminis-

•atiou of the law, which but too frequently led

to a failure of justice. Had it not been for the
unequivocal and unconditional promise of the
Ministerial Leader in the Lower House, some
private Member would probably havelssumed the
responsibility of the measure for carrying out the
valuable suggestions above referred to, or at least
some of the most important and urgent provi-
sions founded thereon. In such an event, the
whippers-in might have found some more appro-
priate task than trying to prevent the formation
of a House, manoeuvring for a " Count-
out ;" and the disgraceful scenes which
might have led to untoward results would

have been avoided. The ruse was, however, suc-
cessful, and the matter remained in statu quo
until the well-founded remonstrance of Lord
BROUGHAM in the House of Lords, again directed
public attention to the shameful laches of her
MAJESTY'S Government.

The Noble and Learned Lord justly complained
of what appeared to be not only a very, great
slight to himself personally, but an act of gross
and unwarrantable disrespect to the branch of the
Legislature of which he is an influential member.
He showed that he had introduced a Bill at the
Very
commencement of the Session, eight months
ago,
for the purpose of amending the Law of Evi-
dence
and Procedure. One portion of it related
to a serious deficiency • the Act of 1851, which
prevented the wife of either plaintiff or de-
fendant from being examined as a witness in any
suit unless herself a party to the record. The in-
convenience arising from this omission had been
seriously felt. It was found that, in many cases,
the wife was the person who had managed the
• transaction which gave rise to the litigation and
was by far the most itnportant witness the'only
one, in fnot,
who emild throw clear light upon the
points at issue. The presiding Judges, who were
compelled to rule in accordance with the law,
frequently deplored the necessity which prevented
them from hearing the best evidence, and obliged
them to decide in opposition to the substantial
merits of the case under investigation at the time.
Even those who had previously doubted the ex-
pediency of allowing the testimony of a wife to
be received for or against her husband became
converts, and recognised the propriety of re-
moving the exclusion with all convenient speed.
On the second reading of Lord BROUGHAM'S
13111 on the 10th of March the Lord Chancellor,
who had previously opposed the admissibility of