The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-27 00:00:00

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

Lord BROUGHAM, after alluding to certain returns
lately laid before their lordships' house, said he wished
to correct a mistake which these returns might lead
their lordships to fall into, with regard to the working
of his act of 1851, which made parties to a suit capable
of being examined as witnesses. The returns at first
sight seemed to show that the number of cases of per-
jury had increased since the passing of that act. The
fact, however, was quite the reverse. The bill had been
passed into law in the month of November, 1851, and
in the ten previous months of that year the number of
cases of perjury had actually doubled, and the number
since the passing of the act was not greater than, if so
great as, the former average. The noble and learned
lord concluded by moving for certain returns showinc,
the relative number of convictions in the years 1849,°
1850, and 1851.
Lord CAMPBELL said the bill of his noble and
learned friend had been of great advantage to the pub-
lic, and instead of increasing, had greatly decreased the
cases of perjury.
The Duke of CLEVELAND presented a petition
from the Governor of Christ's Hospital, against the
Charitable Trusts Bill.

AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS BILL.
Earl GRANVILLE moved the second reading of this
bill.

Lord CAMPBELL approved of the bill, and would
be glad to see it pass into law.
After a few worchrfrozn Lorcrltiitmowr and the Earl
of WICKLOW, the bill was read a second time.
SHERIFF'S AND,. COMMISSARY COURT (BER-
--IVICKSIIIRE) BILL.
On the motion of Lord PANDIUBE, this bill was read a
third time and passed.
COUNTY ELECTION POLL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill, _

Lord PANMURE-exp-iained the objects of the bil

which was to shorten the time for paling at county
elections in Scotland to one day.
The house then went into committee on this bill, and
was

After a few words from the Earl of EGLINTON and
Lord CAMPBELL,

The bill went through committee.
COMMON LODGING-HOUSES BILL.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved the order oa
the day for going into committee on this bill. He said,
however subjects of this kind might be beneath the dig-
nity of certain noble barons, he was far from considering
them beneath the dignity of that house, and far from
admitting that the object of such legislation was petty
and miserable. He had received the strongest testi-
mony of the beneficial operation of the existing
act. At the present moment there were not less
than 80,000 persons living in registered houses, and the
number would shortly be 100,000 ; and many foreigners,
Americans and others, who had visited this country,
partly perhaps with the view of "spying out the naked-
ness of the land," were perfectly astonished at what they
had witnessed. He had thought it necessary to make
these observations in order to defend, not himself, but
the measure from the charge of " cant" and " pseudo-
philanthropy," and to show that it was not liable to such
offensive imputations. If their lordships would visit
the localities in which these houses were situated, and
see how much benefit had been derived from the opera-
tion of the present law, he was quite sure they would
not wish to oppose the slightest impediment to the pass-
ing of further remedial measures.

Lord BEAUMONT could assure their lordships that
he had no intention to interfere in the slightest degree
with the passing of this bill ; and he should not have
risen but fer the pointed allusion of the noble earl to
some observations made by himself in reference not to
this but to another bill. (Hear.) Those observations in
no way applied to the present case, for, in his judgment,
not only was this subject worthy of their lordships' con-
sideration, but it absolutely called for their interference.
Though he might be in favour of such legislation, he
could not accept the noble lord's measures without ex-
amination ; but as his only objection to this bill had
been removed, he should make no further opposition.
The bill then went through committee.
THE CHIMNEY SWEEPERS REGULATION
ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The Earl of CLANCARTY nominated the select com-
mittee on this bill,

The Earl of SLIAFTESBURY had no objection to
inquiry, if it embraced the whole length and breadth of
the subject. Ile feared, however, that that was not
contemplated.
The Earl of WICKLOW said it would be useless to
take evidence which merely tended to show the neces-
sity for the existing law.
--
The names of the committee were then agreed to.

EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE BILL, AND
LAW OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE
BILL.

F On the motion for the second reading of these bills,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that his noble
friend (Lord Brougham) had introduced a measure for
the purpose of extending the powers of examining wit-
nesses, and containing other important provisions. In
some portions of that measure he entirely concurred,
but there were other parts of it which he did not ap-
prove of, and at his suggestion his noble and learned
friend assented to refer the, bill to a committee, by
whom it was divided into two bills. Since this division
of the bills had taken place, the common law commis-
sioners had made their second most able report on the
subject of the mode of procedure at common law, and that
report extended to the whole matter contained in these
two bills. There was a measure now preparing for the
purpose of giving effect to the greater part of these
recommendations, which he hoped to be able to lay on
the table in a short time. Under these circumstances,
and as it would be highly inconvenient to have two bills
on the same subject before the house, he had again to
request his noble and learned friend to allow the second
of his bills to be again divided. His noble and learned
friend could take from that bill the four clauses which
had reference to the examination of witnesses, and which
would carry into more complete effect the valuable en-
actment known as Lord Brougham's Law of Evidence
Act.

Lord BROUGHAM said that he most willingly as-
sented to the suggestion of his noble and learned friend,
for it would be most inconvenient to have two
bills running together on the same subject, and the mea-
sure brought in by Government would not only be bet-
ter framed and devised, but it would also have a much
better chance of being carried than his (Lord Brogham's)
bill. What he proposed, therefore, was, that the first
bill should be now read a second time as a matter of
form, with an assurance that he would net proceed fur-
ther with that bill. He would take the four clauses re-
ferred to by his noble and learned friend, and propose
them separately, which would complete the act of 1851.
The remaining portion of that bill would lie over till he
saw the measure which his noble and learned friend was
going to introduce, and which he had no doubt would
contain the whole of the clauses which he now postponed
till the introduction of the Government measure. Mean-
time what he proposed to do was to move the re-com-
mittal of the bill to-morrow (this day), and that it be
an instruction to the committee to divide the bill into
two parts.

Lord CAMPBELL would not oppose the second
reading, but he must protest against it as interfering
with trial by jury.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the bill did not in the
least interfere with anything that was valuable in trial
by jury.
The bill was then read pro forma a second time.

INDIA.
Lord MONTEAGLE rose to present a petition from
8,401 Hindoo inhabitants of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa,
against article 21 of the act of 1850 of the Government
of India. The petition was placed in his hand for pre-
sentation by a meritorious officer of the East India Com-
pany, and now a member of the House of Commons,
and this would warrant their lordships in believing that
the petition was perfectly genuine. The petitioners
complained of the 21st article of the act of 1850 of the
Indian Government, which they declared interfered
with their religious usages, contrary to the pledges
made by the English Government that they would in
no way interfere with the religious usages of the Hindu
or Mohammedan inhabitants of India. This article had
reference to ;the right of inheritance in the case of con-
verts to the Christian religion. No one could be more
anxious than he was to anticipate the time when the
blessings of the Christian religion should be introduced
into India. But at the same time those blessings should
not be introduced amongst a people by forcible or frau-
dulent means. The

Religio tantum potuit sundae malorum
of the Roman poet did not apply to the essence of re-
ligion itself, but to the means which were used for
putting it in force. Under the ancient Hindu laws
the inheritance of land descended to the heir, subject
to certain religious trusts and certain observances of a
religious character ; and if he lost caste, or quitted his
own religion, he became incapable of performing those
religious trusts, and, consequently, of holding the
estate. It was :considered, in 1832, during the admi-
nistration of Lord W. Bentinck, that the law in this
respect required amendment, and a clause was intro-
duced in the act which then passed, which provided that
a Hindoo or Mohammedan who changed his religion
should not lose his right to the property to which, with-
out such change, there was no doubt he would be en-
titled. That law, however, was never carried int prac-
tical operation. In 1845, the whole law of India was
made the subject of investigation by law commissioners,
and they found this singular state of things existing in
India, that whereas there was a Mohammedan law for
the Mohammedans, and a Hindoo law for the Hindoos,
there was no law for the Christian or the Armenian,. or
any other denomination whatsoever. The consequence
was that they proposed a remedy, and that remedy was
the adoption and extension of Lord W. Bentinck's regu-
lation, by which the rights of converts were protected ;
care being at the same time taken that third parties,

who were not converts, should not be injured. (Hear,
hear.) That proposal, however, was not carried, for
reasons which it would be improper for him to discuss
on the present occasion. But in 1850, an act passed
which not only absolutely secured the Christian convert
all that he possessed whilst a Hindoo, but deprived
i others of the rights, privileges, and property to which
they were entitled under their own ancient laws. It
was against this law that the petitioners complained ;
, and they complained of it not only on the ground of its
hardship, but on the ground that it went further than
the framers of the act intended, because it applied as
well to those who, had lost caste for immoral or illegal
conduct as to those who had become converts to the
Christian religion. (Hear, hear.) The petitioners put
their case on still higher ground, for they alleged, and
alleged truly, that England promised the natives that
she would never interfere with their law of inherit-
ance, their marriage law, or their religion, and in
. proof of this they appealed to the acts of 1781 and 1793,
which secured them in these respects. They were now
going to legislate for India again, but before they passed
any laws for that country the natives were entitled to a
fair and impartial hearing. He hoped that in present-
ing this petition it would not be supposed that he was
indifferent to the spread of Christianity in India, which
he was most anxious to see extended over the length
and breadth of the land. But he was sure that to
have recourse to underhand means for this purpose,
would only sully the holiest of causes, and it was not
the way either to reach or to deserve success. (Hear,
hear.) The noble lord concluded by presenting the
petition and moving that it be referred to the Indian
committee.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said he rose for the
purpose of expressing his concurrence in what had
fallen from his noble friend. The petitioners had just
reason to complain of the grievance referred to, which
was inconsistent with the pledges made by The legisla-
ture of this country to the people of India, and with the
conditions on which they held that country—those con-
ditions. being that-they would respect the Jaws and re-
ligion of the people of that country. But although he
thus far agreed with the petitioners, he was satisfied
that in practice the act complained of had not produced
very much injury on this account, that the number of
pseudo-converts to Christianity were up to the present
time so infinitely small that the cases must be very few
in which the act had been called into operation. The
strongest proof of that was to be found in the fact that
the law of 1832 was entirely unknown to the natives.
It would be very difficult to explain the intentions
of the Legislature in passing the act of 1832, yet
it was for the purpose of extending that act that
the act of 1850 was passed, and passed without
any of those provisions which in 1845 were deemed
necessary for preventing it from working mischief
and misery to parties not intended to be benefitted
thereby. (Hear, hear.) But he believed the operation
of that act had not been considerable. (Hear, hear.)
When in Calcutta he had asked the archdeacon, or one
of the clergymen of the church, how it was that he did
not employ native converts to Christianity in performing
certain services ; and he was told that there were not
enough of them. Yet in Calcutta it might be supposed
that conversions would be most numerous. One day hob
had a visit from the American missionary, and he asked
him, "Do you ever make a convert ?" " Never," he said,
" except when we have an office at our disposal."
(Laughter.) The Roman Catholic archbishop also ad-
mitted that there was no extension of his religion amongst
the natives, though from some circumstances it might
be supposed that the Roman Catholic religion would be
more readily embraced. The noble lord who presented
the petition had omitted to state that in the act of 1845,
as was customary with the Legislature, certain explana-
tions were given of the practical operation of the several
clauses of the act which it was intended to pass. With
respect to the security which this act professed to give to
converted Hindoos, a long note was appended to the 13th
section, pointing out all possible cases that might
arise under it. It might have been supposed, when the
Legislature was contemplating the inconveniences of
such an enactment, that it would have abstained from
any enactment at all. Not only was there given to the
court of appeal the power of making what provisions it
thought fit, but also of over-ruling and annulling the law
itself. In 1850 all these securities had been thrown over,
and the act had been passed with all the objections which
his noble friend had stated. Let the house observe what
immoral motives it suggested to the Hindoos. The mis-
sionary went to the Hindoo and said, " If you will come
over to our faith you shall still continue in possession,
not only of all the property you hold, but you shall retain
all your ancestral property, and retain it without being
subject to any of the conditions by which alone you hold it,
under the Hindoo law, and which are inseparable from its
possessions." These conditions we might think very
wrong, but they were extremely dear to the Hindoo,
who was taught from his earliest youth to respoct his
ancestors, and to perform certain rites which he be-
lieved to be conducive to their happiness. (Hear, hear.)
The missionary went further, and said, " Hive you a
wife Do you wish to live with her or to get rid of
her ? This law gives you not only your property, but
your rights. Your conjugal rights among the rest and
in spite of all her abhorrence of one who has forsaken

1 the faith of his fathers, you may compel her to live with
you. But if you do not wish to have a wife, we can
equally assist you ; you need only not enforce the rights
which the law gives you, and then you get rid of her
altogether, and need no longer maintain her out of your
property." (Hear, hear.) That was not all. In that '
country it frequently happened that a man had more
wives than one ; he might have an old wife and a young
one ; and under this law he might choose which he
would take, and leave the other destitute. He might
have a dozen wives ; and the law gave him the power of
taking every one of them if he pleased, of importing
them all into Christianity ; and every one of them was
his wife as much as if he had been married to her in the
Christian religion. (Hear.) The state of confusion that
might arise out of the application of this law was per-
fectly monstrous. It applied not only in cases of con-
version, but in cases where conversion had nothing at
all to do with the matter. In cases of gross immorality,
where a person lost caste, was expelled from his sect,
and forfeited his ancestral property, such a person might
under this act get possession of all the property he had
before, without any of the conditions on which he had
held it. (Hear.) It was not to be wondered that the
Hindoos should entertain very great apprehensions
when they saw such an act as this passed. They dreaded
what was to come after this first indication of the
intention of the British Government to interfere
with their religion and the laws connected therewith.
Up to that time everything had been left exactly as it
stood without any intervention on our part ; and they,
seeing that we would maintain their laws and religion,
had accepted our government and had been faithful sub-
jects of the British Crown. But if this wore regarded as
the commencement of an altered system, would the same
feelings towards the British Government remain? This
law might have been enforced in Madras or Bengal, but
not at Benares. Had any attempt been made there
to force a Hindoo woman into the society of her husband
after he had become a convert, there would have been a
universal outbreak. That which was essential to the
existence of our government in India, and without which
it was not safe for three weeks, was a continued respect
for the religion of the people, and the laws of property
which depended upon that religion. He hoped this sub-
ject would be taken into most serious consideration by 1
the committee.

Earl GRANVILLE said that, after what had fallen
from the noble earl opposite, he felt it necessary to say
a few words in explanation on the part of the Govern-
ment. The statement of the noble lord who presented
the petition was mainly correct as to the cause of the
legislation on this subject in 1832 and in 1845 ; but he
had omitted to state that the principal inconveniences of
the law of 1845 were objected to at the time by the Su-
preme Court. He was quite sure that the principle of
the law of 1850 was a just one. (Hear hear.) Reference
bad been made to the engagements entered into by the
Hindoo natives. It was clear that if a Hindoo became a
Mohammedan he had a right to be protected in the pro-
perty he possessed ; and that was incompatible with the
Hindoo law, which took away the property of those who
changed their religion. (Hear.) This was a difficulty
from which they could not escape. The Lords Com-
missioners had been desired to frame laws applicable
to all the natives ; and this could only be carried out
in the way that was done by this act. As to this being
a perfectly new act, and the beginning of a new course,
such was not the case. Suttees had already been aboli-
shed. He apprehended that this was not a strict provi-
sion of the Hindoo law, but merely depended on a Hin-
doo custom. Another practice was that of abandoning
children to chance, which had been strictly prohibited
by the law of Lord Wellesley, although equally impera-
tive by Hindoo custom. (Hear, hear.) Wherever there
was a native law entirely inconsistent with natural jus-
tice, he hoped the Government would refuse to sanction
such a law. (Hear, hear.) He agreed with the noble
lord in deprecating any forced modes of conversion, or
the practice of holding out inducements for the purpose
of obtaining converts, but he was surprised to hear the
noble lord contend that a convert ought not to b. e main-
tained in precisely the same position as he was in before
he changed his religion without suffering any penalty.
(Hear, hear.) He trusted their lordships would agree
with him in thinking that the general principles of the
law were fair to the natives, reasonable in themselves,
and consistent with the real justice of the case. (Hear,
hear.)
After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE,

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said he hoped the
noble earl (Granville) would look into the wording of
the act, and see if he could not substitute some words
that would be less prejudicial. If the noble earl could
so arrange it that the Hindoo converts should be as well
off as before their conversion, and that other parties
should be no worse off, be would meet the wishes of all.
(Hear, hear.) Some provision ought to be made for
those of the family remaining attached to their old faith,
in order that they might be enabled to perform the con-
ditions devolving upou the whole. (Hear.)
The motion for referring the petition to the committee
was then agreed to.