The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-01 00:00:00

and eighty millions by annual . taxation, it
could only do so by the use of a paper currency,

that enabled the various banks to afford all the

pecuniary accommodation that could reasonably be
required, because there was more than forty-seven
and a half millions of inconvertible paper in daily
use. At that time there was between five and
six pounds worth of paper circulating for every
individual, without exception of age or infancy ;
while now the circulation is but little more than
one-quarter the amount, or 1/. 10s. per head of
the entire population.
How, then, can we be expected to bear the
increased imposts, the doubled Income Tax, the
enhanced Malt, Sugar, and Spirit Duties, while
we are deprived of the means of exercising our
industry. We may, like the sufferers of the
olden time, be told " ye are idle, ye are idle 1"
We may be told.—" Ye shall deliver the- full
amount of your taxes, although you have not a
circulating medium adequate to the wants and
exigencies of the country," and the object may be
similar in its character. It may be that it is
desired to disgust the people with the war, to
induce them to relinquish their honest indigna-
tion against the unconscientious aggressor, and to
be ready to assent to the patching up of a hollow,
a precarious, and a dishonourable peace, or rather
a truce, for there could be no lasting peace under
such circumstances. But, happily, there the
parallel ends. We are not serfs, and we can do
something more than " cry" before our task-
master.

It is absurd to say that means may be taken
to economise the currency. It is like the scat-
tering forth of the people to collect " stubble in
place of straw." We have already resorted
to every practicable expedient for that pur-
pose, and we have seen the result. In place
of having the use of capital on cheaper terms
than other countries, as was usually the case, we
find that the minimum rate of discount at the
quasi National Bank is 5 per cent. (higher than
it was on the 23d of October, 1847), while in
Paris it is but 4 per cent., in Amsterdam 3 per
cent., and in Hamburgh 2 per cent. And
yet, even that stringent application of the
screw is not sufficient to prevent the efflux
of bullion from our ports, and the consequent
further diminution of our already too scanty
supply of bank notes. Has not the time, then,
arrived for a decided and. unanimous demand on
Parliament to provide the requisite monetary
facilities—or, at all events, to adopt precautionary
measures, in the event of the drain being much
longer continued It will yield to the pressure
from without. But there must be a clear and
unequivocal expression of opinion on the part of
the community. If monetary reformers remain
indifferent and apathetic, nothing will be done.
If they desire relief, they must put their own
shoulders to the wheel, remembering that GOD
will aid those who are willing to exert them-
selves.

There is at least a reasonable prospect of one
important measure of reform surviving the on-
slaughts that have destroyed so many of its breth-
ren. The second Common Law Procedure Act—

the natural and fitting supplement of that which
has given such universal satisfaction to the bench,
the bar, and the community at large—has passed
through the House of Lords, where the chief dan-
ger was to be encountered. We cannot fear any
further impediment to this admirable measure,
notwithstanding the ruthless destruction of so
many innocents, even before the ordinary period
for the general measure. We hope and believe
that the present bill will pass without mutilation
or serious alteration, and that we shall speedily
be enabled to congratulate the public on the
Royal Assent being given to what the greatest
living legal reformer justly described as " a great
and most important improvement of the law—one
of the greatest and most important within his re-
collection !" We concur with Lord BROUGHAM
in the opinion that the measure scarcely goes far
enough. In fact, it does not carry out all the
recommendations of the Special Commissioners ;
But every step is in the right direction, and the
most enthusiastic reformer cannot deny that it
offers a large and very handsome instalment on
his demands.

We should hail the progress of the measure with
unalloyed gratification but for the opposition of
one who has earned a high reputation in all mat-
ters relating to the administration and practice of
the law. The objections of Lord ST. LEONARDS
were, however, only directed to some portions of
the bill, and these were points in which the pro-
found learning and great acumen of the Noble
and Learned Lord were not required to draw cor-
rect conclusions from the admitted premises. In-
deed it required no practical acquaintance with
the law to be enabled to form an accurate
opinion on the questions at issue.
The first related to the " unanimity of the
Jury." On this subject the bill is at variance
with the Report of the Commissioners. It will
be in the recollection of our readers that these
learned gentlemen recommended "that the pre-
sent rule requiring unanimity in a jury, should
be maintained !" They arrived at this conclusion
not without considerable difficulty, and after the
most serious and mature consideration ; and un-
questionably there were very plausible grounds
for their decision. It could scarcely be antici-
pated that the verdict of a bare majority would
give complete satisfaction. If three or four im-
partial gentlemen, who had solemnly sworn " a
true verdict to give according to the evidence,"
honestly and conscientiously believed that the
substantial justice of the case was in favour of
one of the litigants, that litigant could scarcely
be expected to think that the "majority" were
right. " Quod volumnus, facile credimus," he
would rely, with undoubting faith, on the views
of " the intelligent minority," and be desirous of
submitting his case to the ordeal of a new inves-
tigation. The difference of opinion among the
jury would give weight to his application for a
new trial, and great procrastination and serious
expense might be thereby occasioned. The ne-
cessity for unanimity, too, secures a full and
complete discussion of the matter in dis-
pute in all its varied details, and it not
unfrequently happens that many conscien-
tious jurors are induced to alter too hastily
formed opinions in the progress of such discus-
sions. If the verdict of the majority were bind-
ing, a division would be taken immediately on
the retiring of the jury to consider their verdict,
and nothing would alter the first impression.
These arguments are unquestionably entitled to
much weight, and they appear unanswerable
against the verdict of the mere majority, or even
of two-thirds or three-fourths, of the jury, as have
been from time to time suggested by many high
authorities. But the Lord Chancellor, on whom
the responsibility of the final legislation devolved,
naturally considered that an intermediate course
might properly be adopted. In civil proceedings
the balance was to be held with a nice hand.
There was no benefit of a doubt in favour either
of plaintiff or defendant. The decision should
be in -
Ho
wentnc ea
eitherawereceorsiadaecce with the "weight of evidence."
decisive preponderance of opinion
Hence the objects to
not wouldbe sufficient, if the
hastilyjudg-
or recklessly formed.
be achieved were to ascertain
' such a decided balance
of
in
in favour of
either party as would, if n accordance with the
Judge,
views of the presiding afford a strong pro-
bability of its being in accordance •
with the sub-
stantial feature of the case, and
also to exercise
such an amount of deliberation as would render a
hasty verdict impossible. The first point might,
according to the views of Lord CRANWORTa (who,
it will be remembered, had long experience as a
Common Law Judge, in which position he acquired
the distinguished character that entitled him to
the woolsack), be accomplished by requiring that