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

were to enter further into detail, the result would ba.
to add the force of the objections which he haft
urged. His object had been to place the matter in.
such a light as would enable their lordships to arrive.
at a just conclusion, and his excuse for having thus
trespassed on their attention was that they never
had a bill of greater importance brought under
their consideration. The noble and learned lord con-
cluded by intimating, in a tone which was scarcely
audible, that there were two clauses on which he in•
tended to take the sense of the house.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said his noble and
learned friend had referred in committee to five or six
different provisions of a bill containing more than a hun-
dred clauses, stating that there were only two on which
he intended to take a division ; and though he was very
unwilling to trouble their lordships at that moment, he
could not leave his noble and learned friend's observa-
tions un answered. What was the history of this mea-
sure ? Two years ago a bill was passed, founded on the
report of a commission of learned Persons, making most
extensive• changes in the proceedings at common law.
His noble ,and learned friend near him (Lord Brougham)
would bear him out in saying that the working of the
provisions of the bill was most satisfactorily. On a
recent occasion his noble and learned friend attributed
to that cause the diminution in the business of the
county courts as compared with that of the superior
courts:.

Lord BROUGHAM--Not to the improvement of the
article, but to the lowering of the price. (Laughter.)
The LO RD CHANCELLOR continued—The present
bill was founded on a second report of the same com-
mission,. and had received the approval of a select corn-
mitttee of their lordships' house, who went through it
clause by clause. Now, what were the objections of
his noble and learned friend ? First, he expressed a
doubt as to the expediency of allowing parties to have a
cause tried by a judge without the assistance of a jury.
He (the Lord Chancellor) would confess that that was a
part of the measure of which he was not at first ena-
moured, because he thought that men were often im-
proved as citizens in discharging their duties as jurymen ;
but, at the same time, when a bill for amending the law
had to be introduced to the legislature, it occurred to
him that it was not fair to suitors to make them pay for
the education of the community. (Hear, hear.) Tho
next clause to which his noble friend adverted was one
on which he had intimated his intention to take a divi-
sion. Their lordships were aware that, as the law stood
at prevent, unanimity was necessary. Now, undoubt-
edly, the clause in question, which had been introduced
after great
byeat consideration, was not that which was recom-
mended the commissioners. He quite agreed with
his noble and learned friend that with all its anomalies
the present state of the law had not been productive of
any great degree of practical injustice. But when they
were making a change of this nature it was impossible
to
pr giveep ns e tdh
wi s
aquestionutnhe angobnn -ityy .s
b.% nV 1
ladt
bt he e
peroems
emr
vi sesdi ne r
bute
that the absurfdolo2d hourso
andr fire
locking
earbarous rule of up the
u
et
hseh
jury
yd
should
uld n abolished,ot h
v and
agreed,that
if ar y
t the without
end
of
having had reasonable refreshment in the ameantim
then the matter should drop and it should be
open,
to the parties to have a new trial. That provision under-
went great consideration ; and his noble and learned
friend the Lord Chief Justice suggested that the twelve
hours should be retained, and if at the end of that time
the jury were unanimous well and good, but if they were
not and ten or eleven et them, five to one, were of one
mind that should be a good verdict. There might be
an obstinate man on a jury, who might be influenced
by the consideration that if he only held out for twelve
hours there would be an end of the matter ; and such a
person would be more I.kely to be reasonable if he knew
that at the end of the twelve hours the other jurymen
would carry the verdict against him. His noble and
learned friend complained of what he called the arbitra-
tion clauses. Any one who had been in the habit of
attending the courts of law must be aware that many
cases came before them which it was impossible to try.
Suppose an action was brought by a builder for work to
the amount of 5,0001., made up of a number of small
items, it was not possible to decide the matter in court,
seeing that every item would have to be investigated se•
parately. The ordinary course was for the court to refer
such cases to arbitration. By the bill power was given
to the judge, at the instance of either party, to refer the
matter to arbitration before any expense had been in-
curred. This was undoubtedly a new thing in Eng-
land, but it was not new in Great Britain, for in
Scotland it was the common mode of proceeding
with regard to accounts, and he anticipated great
benefit as the result of its introduction here. The
next provision to which b;s noble and learned
friend objected was one relating to oaths, a provision
which would, he thought, be received with satisfaction
by the country at large. The present state of the law
on this subject was most anomalous. Quakers, Mora-
vians, and Separatists, were absolved from the taking of
oaths, and what was proposed was, that any person who,
on being called as a witness, stated that he had a con-
scientious scruple against the taking of an oath, should
be allowed to make an affirmation instead, provided the
judge were satisfied of the sincerity of his objection. His
noble friend asked why such a party was to be relieved ?
This, as it appeared to him, was putting the matter on a
most absurd foundation. It was unimportant to the
witness whether his evidence were received or not ; but
to a tradesman who was suing for the amount of a
bill, it was of material consequence that the only person
perhaps who coL'ld speak to the facts should not have
his testimony refused. By the bill, tkis matter was
placed on a rational footing. A few words in reply to
his noble and learned friend's objections to the equity
clauses. Their lordships could not be unaware of the fact
that there had of late been a great call among legal refor-
mers for what was termed lega fusion, or the abolishing of
the distinction between law and equity. Most unques-
tionably, if any man were going to make a code of laws
for some island which had suddenly sprung up in the
Pacific, and which bad just been peopled, he would
not think of establishing there two systems—one of law
and another of equity. But he had never been one of
those who in making changes in a system that worked
tolerably well on the whole, would, from a desire to
carry out at once what might be theoretically right,
incur the risk of creatiog practical difficulties. He
thought it best in such a matter to proceed step by step.
If there were any one principle upon which law reformers
ought to be agreed it was that there should be one suit
for one cause, in other words that one and the same
court should be able to do entire justice in the case ;
and all that the bill proposed had been devised with that
view. The last objection he ever expected to hear the
bill was that it was a step too much in advance. He
would not answer the objections of his noble and learned
friend in detail, but he thought they were generally un-
tenable. He hoped the bill had no obscurity about it :
it seemed to be well and carefully drawn, and to have
legitimate objects in view.
Lord CAMPBELL approved of the bill, and would
state his reasons for doing so on the third reading.
Tho bill then went tnrough committee.
CHURCH BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT -
BILL.

This bill was re-committed.
Their lordships adjourned at twenty minutes after
eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
The following bills were considered, and ordered to be
read a third time :—Bagenalstown and Wexford (No. 2),
Bideford Roads, Cornwall Railway, Dudley, Halesowen,
and Bromsgrove Roads, Edinburgh Roads, Londonderry
and Enniskillen Railway, Newport and Pillgwenlly Water-
works, Newport Dock, Stockport Rectory Division, Lon-
don, Tilbury, and Southend Railway, and West Brom-
wich Improvement Bills.
YORK, NEWCASTLE, AND BERWICK RAILWAY
(CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS, ho.) BILL.
Mr. COWPER moved the omission of clause 10 in this
bill, with tho view of inserting another clause, for the pur.
pose of protecting the navigation of the river Tyno.
Mr. STEPHENSON, Mr. J. H. LIDDEL, and Mr. Bou.
YERIE, opposed the amendment.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, believing that tho sense of the
house was against the amendment, he should withdraw it.
The bill was then read a third time and expressed.
MIDDLESEX INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.

Ou the motion for considering the above bill,
Mr. MULLINGS moved the omission of certain words
in the bill respecting the regulation of religious worship in
those schools.
Mr. J. BALL opposed the amendment. This bill,
though brought in as a private ono, was in reality a most
important measure as regarded the public, and was the
first attempt to get hold of the Roman Catholic children
in those institutions under the plea of instructing them,
but in reality for purposes of proselytism.
Sir G. GREY said as a member of the committee upon
whom devolved the consideration of this question, he felt,
bound to support the retaining of the words in the bill,
the omission of which had been moved by the hon mem-
ber (Mr. Mulling).
Sir J. PAKINGTON said ho also had been a member of
the committee to whom the bill had been referred, and he
could not help expressing his hope that his hon. friend
(Mr. Mullings) would not press his amendment. (Hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the amendment of hie
hon. friend (Mr. Mullings). He thought the words ob-
jected to were wholly unjustifiable, as they would go to
allow the celebration of the mass in those institutions,
which was a thing unknown since the Reformation.
Mr. DRUMMOND thought his hon. friend (Mr. New-
degate) was frightened at the word " mass," for he thought
any other form of word. would not have challenged the
opposition of the hon. member, for in reality, there was
nothing frightful in school-rooms being used as places of
instruction for children. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. SPOONER said the hon. member (Mr. Drummond)
had made very light of a very serious matter ; but he (Mr.
Spooner) thought that any minister who should advise the
Queen to sanction such a bill ought to be impeached.
(Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. ADDERLEY supported the amendment, not on the
ground of the hon. member who proposed it, but ,
ho believed it would be found wholly impracticable.ee t_Litte:
Lord D. STUART said, as a member of the
ht
been introduced as a general public bill an
ho had opposed this bill, which he considereddounegteetoshparvie.
to w
as
which he (Lord
vate bill. He believed, however, that thee cfleauunsdeeodbjeencttehde
by the hon. member (Mr. Hollings) le
principles of religious liberty—pr ne
D.
ort tho amend-
sSsetsu.art(H) wishedear.) to see extended ito all sects and all
ofsu Toman Catholic
moot.
HTEhNerLeE,Yveresaied
formsthe o f
amendment.theiro
h ht they ought to
children in those schools,
largo he e could
an d he
numbernot t u g
cl °when the numbers appeared--
wn
The house thou divide , l9O
hchauvercrhe.liglTeusshwooursldhtilipeareceforrdeivnogtteoagtahienst
For the clause .............. 108
For the amendment

Majority for the clause 62
So the amendment
UILDIN Was
lost an
ACTS .d the clause agreed to.
BUILDING
Sir J. SHELLEY asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department when he intends to bring in a bill to
amend the Metropolitan Buildings Act.
Lord PALMERSTON said the bill would be for the
amendment of 13wilding Ada generally, and he could not