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

he would, as a matter of course, after the documents they al-
ready had on another subject, have postponed his B;11 until
to-morrow, The course now ad..pttd
to him, was sorry to ay would be very ineol,venieLL
to their Lordships, for it would oblige him to address them
at much greater length than he intended to have done. lint
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 '846, 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 be 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 Co' tenham
an infinitessimal 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 clause 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 gre ,t 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 be ore 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.
In 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
Prance 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 perfectly 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 a
give evidence in a court where this option of jurisdiction
had been exercised. That no doubt was a very possible
case, 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 Neble 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 of jetstice.
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 ruit 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 BROUGHAM 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 ju-tffication for an adjournment. (There
were only about half a dozen Peers present at this period.)
He would ask the adjournment until the following evening.
Lord CRAM' WORTH said if they were to have an at;journ-
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.

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

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 3.

INQUIRY INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND
TERRITORIES OF THE EAST INDIA COM.-

PANY.

Mr. ANSTEY rose to move the following resolution:—
"An address to her Majesty,, representing that it is
now necessary that the true condition of the territories
under the government and management of the East
India Company, and the real feelings and wishes of our
fellow-subjects inhabiting those territoriee, as to such
government or management, should be fully ascertained;
and for that purpose, praying her Majesty to take mea-
sures for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry,
with full powers to take evidence in India as to the
operation and results of the laws now in force, touching
the government and management of the said territories,
and to report such evidence, together with the opinions
of the Commissioners thereon, to her Majesty in Par-
liament."
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that, before the
Act of 1833 should be renewed either in its present
shape or with' such amendments as Parliament might
think proper, he considered it necessary that some pre-
liminary inquiry should be instituted, and that such in-
quiry should be conducted on the spot. When Mr.
Grant, in the year 1833, introduced the Bill which now
constituted the Act under which our East India terri-
tories were governed, he distinctly stated that he called
upon the House to undertake an experiment of no ordi-
nary kind; that in proposing an extension of the term,
contrary to his original intention, from fifteen to twenty'
years, during which the East India Company and the
Board of Control were to be intrusted with the conduct
of the experiment, he had in view only those
precau-
tions which were necessary to render the
experiment
nto e
xatgree renewalto ehai
op
beforero posi tpi oanr,i
atmh ienekti nt
ng
successful. Upon that ground the House was induced
have no reason to complain that e
ethematpaisn,yhen the
been allowed. Thatsufficient
measure was not broughwtobueld.
fore the House until the 13th of June, and it then came
on in the shape of a preliminary resolution.
At that period of the session there were
considerable arrears of public business, and it
was impossible to discuss the matter with that
calmness and deliberation which interests of
such magnitude required. A similar objection ex-
isted to the proceedings in the years 1781 and 1793,
when political events prevented an ample consideration
of the question. Sir ,Tames Mackintosh, on the 17th
JIM, 1833, foretold what would be the result of intro-