The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-25 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS--(YESTERDAY.)

SECOND COMMON LAW PROCEDURE, 1854,

BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second
reading of this bill, said he would not again enter into
its details, but would merely make one or two observa-
tions upon some objections which had been urged to the
measure. One of the provisions of the bill was that it
enabled parties to have their causes tried either by juries
or by the judge alone ; and it had been said that he had
done wrong in making it optional with the judge. It
would be extremely embarrassing to a judge to have to
try certain eases—for instance, a ease of trim. con., and
award the amount of damages. After a trial was over,
the jury sunk again into society, and nobody could
point out a man and say, "that is the person who taxed
me to such -an amount," out this parties would be
enabled to do with reference to a judge. Again, .it was
said that in pauper actions a defendant should be at
liberty to pay a sum of money into court, and if the
plaintiff went on and did not recover a greater amount,
he should be called on to pay the additional costs.
Now, he thought that must be qualified. Suppose thb
character of a person had been attacked, and he brought
his action to vindicate it, should a party be at liberty to
say, "Here is 501., go on with your action if you dare ?"
and if the jury found that the plaintiff was entitled
to no more, he was to be called on to pay all the
costs. Surely that would be scandalous. Such a
law could not be permitted. There was another
point to which he wished to allude—the commis-
sioners recommended that the common law courts should
be empowered to make an order for specific per-
formance. Now, this was not possible with reference to
all kinds of contracts—for instance, to put an extreme
case, where a person make a contract to marry ; he
thought, however, that the bill provided for every such
case where it would be at all useful. It provided for
delivering up chattels, and where a party had agreed to
do certain work its performance might be ordered by
the court. It could not, however, be made to apply to
the sale of estates, where a question of title was con-
cerned, because there was no machinery, as in the equity,
courts, for inquiring into questions of title. He in-
tended to propose that the bill be referred to a select
committee.

Lord CAMPBELL said a school had sprung up out
of doors which treated with contempt everything esta-
blished. He was of opinion that, where there was con-
flicting evidence, a trial by jury, with the assistance of a
judge, was the fairest and best kind of trial. With re-
gard to the question of specific performance, he thought
there should be one court which should deal with that
matter, he did not care whether it was a court of law or
equity, but whichever it was the parties should have the
option of suing for damages or enforcing the contract.
lie rather preferred the power being given to a court of
law.
Lord ST. LEONARDS, with reference to the dis-
cussion between the noble lord the Chief Justice and his
noble friend on the woolsack, entirely agreed with the
view of the latter on the subject of specific performance.
The Earl of WICKLOW drew attention to a new prin-
ciple which had been introduced into-the law of the land
by this bill—he alluded to the clause which empowered a
judge to dispense with an oath in the case of persons con-
scientiously objecting to take such an oath. The house
ought to have been informed of the provision in the bill,
whereas he was the only person who had brought it be-
fore them.

After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR,
who combatted an opinion—expressed by the Eat' of
Wicklow that the clause in question ought not to have
formed part of the present bill ; the object of the clause
was to deal with those cases where to insist upon evi-
dence being given upon oath was to shut out evidence
altogether, _ _ _

The bill was read a second time, and referred to a
select committee.

The Highways (South Wales) Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Registration of Bills of Sale Bill was read a third
time and passed.

VALUATION (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT
BILL.
The report of the amendments to this bill was brought
up and agreed to.

PRAYERS FOR THE SUCCESS OF OUR ARMS

IN THE EAST.

The Earl of CLANCARTY wished, before their lord-
ships separated, to put a question to the noble earl
opposite (Aberdeen) upon a subject which he considered
of great importance, and which he believed was re-
garded as of great importance by a large proportion of
our population. Their lordships and the other house
of Parliament had been for some tithe engaged
in discussions in reference to the position in which
the country was placed by the course of events in
the east of Europe, and the war in which it ap-
peared we were about to be engaged in consequence.
They had had produced before them the diplomatic cor-
respondence which had taken place between our own
Government and that of Russia, including the secret
despatches, and it was most gratifying to him, as he
was sure it must be to their lordships generally, to find that
those despatches not only reflected no dishonour upon,
but the highest credit upon every one who had been en-
gaged on the part of this country in the correspondence.
The discussions which had occurred showed that the
preparations made by the Government to meet the
emergency were most complete in their character, and
that the utmost care had been taken to ensure the
efficiency of both the naval and military force about to
be employed. Public opinion seemed to be wholly in
approval of the policy of the Government, and the en-
thusiasm of the country in favour of the war was equalled
—if not exceeded—by the soldiers and sailors who were
about to be personally engaged in it. There appeared to
be every element. Notwithstanding all these favourable
prospects, there was ono circumstance which he, in com-
mon with a large class of the people of this country, looked
upon with disappointment and regret—that was the
omission, on the part of the Government, to take any
step for publicly invoking the Divine blessing upon the ex-
pedition. He was no advocate for superstitious observ-
ances, but it was not to be forgotten that the battle was not
always with the strong, and when they saw that even
the Emperor of Russia had thought it necessary to re-
cognise the interference of Divine Providence, so far as
to invoke publicly at a grand military display a blessing
upon his banners, surely we, who had the right on our
side, and who were standing forward to protect the
weak against the strong, ought not to neglect so import-
ant a duty as before entering upon the war to pray for
the aid of the Almighty Disposer of events in the ap-
proaching conflict, lest, in the end, we might have as
little cause for congratulation as had the Spanish king
who sent what he believed to be the invincible armada
to attack this country. The question he wished to put
was whether the noble earl had any intention to propose
such a proceeding as he had referred to, and if so when
he would be prepared to indicate when they might ex-
pect such intention would be carried into effect ?
The Earl of ABERDEEN considered the noble earl's
appeal somewhat premature, !for war not having yet
been declared, the time had not arrived when such a
step as that to which the noble earl referred could pro-
perly be taken, even if it should be thought proper to
take it at all. He would remind the noble earl, too,
that there was in our liturgy a prayer to be publicly used
in time of war, and which for the same reason—that war
did not exist—was not read in our churches ; and it
would, he submitted, be prematnre to announce any
proceeding of this sort, until the emergency to which it
was to be directed arose. (Hear.)
Their lordships then adjourned at seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL BILL.
Mr. BAINES having moved the second reading of
this bill,
Mr. H. T. LIDDELL presented a petition from Liver-
pool against the measure.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to put a question to the
Speaker with regard to this bill. After the statement
made by the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) that it was his
intention to introduce clauses to prevent the removal of
Irish paupers in the different unions of this country, he
wished to ask whether it would be competent for the noble
lord to introduce those clauses into a bill, the title of
which specified only England and Wales, without an in-
struction to the committee ? He asked this question,
because he thought it might be well for the house to know
what the bill was that they had before them. (Hear.)
The SPEAKER replied that if the noble lord wished to
introduce these clauses it would be necessary before going
into committee to move an instruction to the committee to
alter the title.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought his hon. friend must have
misapprehended his reply. What he did say was, that he
had proposed to introduce the clauses, but that he found
the construction of the bill would make it difficult to place
them in it, and he had therefore undertaken to introduce
a new bill. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. STAFFORD complained that the house really did
not know what the bill under discussion was ; and he
thought that the conduct of the Government with reference
to it was as unusual as it was blameworthy. On the 10th
of February the bill was brought forward, and its first
clause, as well as its title (to which the hon. member for
Finsbury had called attention), distinctly limited it to
England and Wales. The bill had been commented upon,
and petitioned for or against throughout the whole coun-
try. In the meantime, however, rumours had got into cir-
culation to the effect, that the Irish members had sent a
paper to a gentleman high in the Cabinet, stating that un-
less the irremovability of the Irish poor was admitted they
should feel it their duty to oppose the bill. (Cries of
"No, no," from the Irish members.) Well he (Mr. Staf-
ford) had not seen the paper, and could notpretend to state
what it contained ; but of one thing he was sure, those
rumours had become so current that yesterday his right
hon. friend the member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had
put the question to the President of the Poor-law Board,
whether the Government were or were not prepared to ex-
tend the provisions of the bill to the Irish poor ? The
right hon. gentleman stated in answer that he did not
know.
Mr. BAINES observed that what he had really stated
was, that the question of Mr. Henley referred to Ireland
and Scotland, and that, as the Poor-law Beard had nothing
to do with those portions of the kingdom, he had better
put his question either to his noble friend the Home Secre-
tary or to the noble lord the leader of the house. (Hear.)
Mr. STAFFORD said that, at all events, it had been
publicly announced by the Irish members in the lobby that
the Government had acceded to the request contained in
the paper to which he had alluded. (Hear.) Now, how-
ever, the noble lord told them that the Government had
neither refused it nor acceded to it ; but that there was to
be another bill, of the provisions of which the house were
necessarily ignorant, seeing that they neither hall it before