The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-04 00:00:00

EVENING, APRIL

The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that the most con-
venient course to pursue would be to recommit the Bill pro
firma, for the purpose of adding those amendments now
suggested.

Their Lordship having acquiesced, the House went into
Committee pro forma, when those amendments were added to
the Bill. It was understood that the discussion would be
taken upon them on Monday.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

ROUS,E OF COMMONS, April 3.
The SPEAKER took tho Chair at Four o'clock.
NEW MEMBERS.

Sir JOHN ROMILLY, the new Master of the Rolle, and
Sir ALEXANDER COCKBURN, the new Attorney-General,
the former the Member for Devonport, and the letter the
Member for Southampton, took the oatha and their seats
on their re-election.

business must that be which was to be repre-
sented in a court of justice by a six-months'
clerk to an attorney ? The Bill would give a licence to the
lowest set of attorneys to lend over their names to unworthy
persons, and, taking it in connexion with that of the attend-
ance of counsel not instructed through attorneys, was a pro-
position which he was sure his Noble and Learned Friend,
on further consideration, would abandon. As tithe-rents were
now only recoverable by distress, it was proposed by this Bill
to give the tithe-rent owner a power to recover where per-
haps there had been nothing titheable raised in the land. The
most facile remedy was by distress; but for it was to be sub-
stituted personal action. The only ground for the clause
was, it wounded the clergyman's feelings to levy a distress,
and it was proposed to give bim the power of sending a man
to prison. He did not approve of any such proposition, and
not approving of the changes proposed, he moved that the
Bill be committed that day six months.
Lord BROUGHAM .was greatly surprised by the course
now proposed to be taken by nis Noble and Learned Friend.
If his Noble Friend had given him the slightest hint, if he
had suggested to him the entertainment of a shadow of a
doubt even resting upon his mind as to any of the clauses,
he would, as a matter of course, after the documents they al-
ready had on another subject, have postponed his Bill until
to-morrow. The course now adopted was very inconvenient
to him, and he was sorry to say would be very inconvenient
to their Lordships, for it would oblige him to address them
at much greater length than he intendel to have done. But
to give their Lordships a sample of the arguments which his
Noble and Learned Friend had employed against this Bill he
would take up that which his Noble and Learned Friend had
said with regard to the equity clauses. His Noble and
Learned Friend took them up and said, "Of what use are
they; they are all to be found in the Act of 1846 ?" Now,
he would convince his Noble and Learned Friend that he
never made a greater mistake; that the mistake of his
Noble and Learned Friend was the greatest possible one
that could be committed on a subject of this kind.—(Hear,
hear.) These equity clauses were not now for the first
time proposed; they were all in the Bill of 1833; they
underwent the most full and elaborate discussion in that
House, and they were lost because the Bill in which they
were contained was then thrown out. In 1846, when a
Bill was proposed by Lord Lyndhurst, and afterwards
adopted by Lord Cottenham, the late Master of the Rolls,
not finding those equity clauses in the Bill, was anxious to
have them introduced. So anxious was the Master of the
Rolls—such value did he, who had such experience of the
practice of that court, attach to these clauses, that he
came down there the other night expressly to support those
clauses.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he was sure that his
Noble and Learned Friend must be aware that the last thing
he would wish to do would be to take him by surprise, or to
.do anything unfair towards him. It was but within the last
few hours he had given his attention to the subject, and
would have no objection to the postponement of the Commit-
the until to-morrow.
Lord BROUGHAM never, he said, intended to complain
of anything unfair on the part of his Noble and Learned
Friend. If his Noble and Learned Friend were to
do anything unfair to him, it would be the first time
in his life he had ever done so. He did not say that
the course taken was unfair—he only complained that it
was inconvenient. But now, as a sample of the whole
cargo of his Noble and Learned Friend's arguments, and
to show how incorrect he was, he must state that the
view entertained by him respecting the equity clauses
was the very opposite of that entertained by the late
Master of the Rolls (Lord Langdale), who, knowing from
experience the value of those clauses, and their full bearing,
had come down expressly to support them. In 1846 the
Master of the Rolls could only obtain from Lord Cottenham
an infinitesaimal portion of these clauses, that part which was
contained in the 22d clause, and which small portion his
Noble and Learned Friend found was equal to the whole.
His Noble and Learned Friend referred to the 22d claus3 as
giving powers which it did not confer. There could be no
doubt, then, that the clauses he proposed were necessary, and
that those the best acquainted with the proceedings in Chan-
cery considered them a great improvement in practice.
He would show him that these clauses had been carefully
prepared. They were first considered in 1833. Then they
were discussed in a Committee of that House, of which several
of the most eminent Law Lords were members. Within the
last six weeks they were again brought before the most
eminent equity practitioners and masters in this country,
and not only before them but also betore the Master of the
Rolls himself. He (Lord Brougham) had acquiesced in a
suggestion that was then made to him by striking out
several clauses and making the Bill more compendious. He
had had communications also with several of the County
Court Judges, several of whose suggestions he thought
it his duty to receive. He had added several clauses in
consequence of those suggestions, each of which
having undergone the most careful consideration, in re-
spect to the question of tithe, referred to by the Noble
and Learned Lord—namely, the proposition to allow tithe-
rent charge to be made the ground of a summons for a plaint
before the County Court Judge he (Lord Brougham) thought
it would be very hard that the claimant should go without
his tithe or distress. Though it was a very painful operation
for him to have recourse to distress, it was but fair that he
should be placed in a situation of recovering it as he would
an ordinary debt. Oh, but his Noble and Learned Friend
said, it was only a debt due in proportion to what was on
the ground, and if there was no titheable matter to be
found, then there could be no distress. But he (Lord
Brougham) should like to know what titheable matter was
produced by a horse, chairs and tables, carts, or any of those
other articles which were subject to distress? If there was
no titheable matter to be found on the ground, why, then,
that was an argument for submitting the question to the
decision of a judge. As to another point referred to, he
knew that his Noble and Learned Friend did not take the
same view of the courts of arbitration which he
( Lord Brougham) did. What was the present course
of proceeding?. When a case comes into court, and
all the expenses incidental to bringing it there were
incurred, it was very often thought to be a fit
matter for reference. The parties were then compelled to go
through a renewal of the expenses before the arbitrator.
What was the consequence? The case lingered before the
arbitrator for a considerable time, because being paid day
by day, he had no particular interest in speedily disposing of
it. Neither had the attorneys or barristers any interest in
having the matter settled within any brief space of time.
Why, it was notorious that many of these references in
England had no end, because the arbitrator had no direct
motive to cut them short. But every one knows that if a
paid arbitrator of experience and ability were appointed be-
fore whom these cases were to be submitted, the proceed-
ings would be rendered much shorter and more satisfactory.
Ia respect to the courts of reconcilement his Noble and
Learned Friend seemed to think that this was a visionary
scheme which would have no practical result. But it should
be recollected that this was a practice adopted by more than
the half of Europe, and with the the most beneficial results.
He had received letters faom the most eminent lawyers in
France and other countries, bearing most valuable testimony
to the great benefits which even in France were received
from the action of those courts of reconcilement. More

than half the cases which go before these judges of! the
courts of reconcilement were settled amicably by their
advice. In these cases it was perfe,tly voluntary with the
parties whether they would go against these courts or not.
A, certain formality was necessary to be observed in France,
but, even then no party was bound to tell his story in these
courts unless he liked it. The Noble and Learned Lord
made one objection as to the option of jurisdiction clause,
and said it would be a hardship for a party to be obliged to
bring his witnesses from a remote part of the country to
give evidence in a court where this option of jurisdiction
had been exercised. That no doubt was a very possible
else, but it was one not likely often to happen. It was
much more probable that the case would be tried in the
neighbourhood of the contending parties and their witnesses,
as of course it would be their interest to save as much ex-
pense in the matter as possible. But the objection raised by
his Noble and Learned Friend was equally good as against
the existing system. The evil apprehended by him might
happen any day now, under the law as it now stands. If
the action was not local, but transitory, the venue might be
laid wherever the parties pleased. He would postpone any
further comments upon the other objections raised by
his Noble and Learned Friend to a future occa-
sion, when there would be a more desirable op-
portunity for making them. There was not, how-
ever, one of those objections which he was not prepared to
meet, and he pledged himself to give a perfectly satisfac-
tory answer to it. As to the exclusion of counsel and at-
torneys from practising in some of these courts, it was found
that the most respectable members of these professions will
not attend the county courts. The result was that the busi-
ness was apt to fall into the hands of an inferior class of
practitioners. To meet this evil he had proposed a clause
which he thought would prove most advantageous to the
contending parties, and more conducive to the ends ofjastice.
It was now for their Lordships to meet the motion as they
thought fit. He had, however, the greatest confidence in
the truth of that sentiment expressed by Lord Bacon and
Lord Coke, that a good proposal for a change in the law—
though it be for a time opposed from prejudice or ignorance
—was, nevertheless, in the end sure to produce its whole-
some it in good season.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that the speech of
the Noble and Learned Lord was very strong in everything
but argument. He would withdraw his amendment with the
view of having the matter fully discussed in a future stage
of the measure.

Lord BROIFGRAM wished that the matter could be dis-
posed of at once, as both sides had been heard.
Lord BEAUMONT would move the adjournment of the
debate, as he wished to make some observations upon the
measure which it was not convenient then to proceed with.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he had often sat until atter
twelve o'clock upon much less important business.
Lord BEAUMONT said that the thinness of the House
was a sufficient justification for an adjournment. (There
were only about half a dozrn Peers present at this period.)
He would ask the adjournment until the following evening.
Lord CRAN WORTH said if they were to have an adjourn-
ment, it would be inconvenient to have the matter discussed
before Monday.
Lord BROUGHAM having suggested some other amend-
ments he meant to propose in the Bill,
Lord BEAUMONT said that the Noble and Learned Lord
ought to lay those amendments on the table, with a view to
their consideration before they had the question again under
discussion.