The Sun.
London, England, 1851-01-14 00:00:00

The inquestmen appeared to be satisfied with his
Lordship's assurance of a speedy decision upon the
freedom question which bas so long been agitated in
the City.
Alderman IVILsoN said that he could not see the
inquest of his ward (Castle Baynard), the foreman of
which ought to be present to hand in the return made
on St. Thomas's-day, but he had to inform the Court
that he had the return in his possession, and he wished
to know whether the Court would receive it from
him? The return was signed by him as alderman,
but no doubt it was informal in him to present it.
There appeared, however, to be no alternative; and
if the Court refused to receive it at his hands, the
Common Councilmen and other officers just elected
to serve in the ward would not be qualified to take
their seats. He at the same time did not by any
means wish to establish a precedent which might be
subject to animadversion.

Alderman CHALLIS intimated that the course pro-
posed was liable to objection as an interference with
the inhabitants, who might he disposed upon some
occasions to complain of matters upon which there
was difference of opinion existing between them and
their aldermen.—(Hear, hear.) It might, too, be in-
judicious to give any check to the communication
between the inhabitants and the Court of Aldermen,
from which mutual advantages never failed to pro-
ceed.—(Rear, hear.)
Alderman LAWRENCE said, the reception of a pre-
sentment under the circumstances very properly
mentioned by Alderman Wilson might lead to ir-
regularities. There might be occasions on which the
inquest differed from others in the ward, and on
which very reasonable objection might be entertained
to the appearance of an alderman as a substitute for
the inquest.
The LORD MAYOR said, he thought he was autho-
rised to receive the presentment, as it was signed by
Alderman Wilson ; but at the moment his Lordship
expressed his intention to overrule the objection the
gentlemen of the inquest, who had been detained by
accident, arrived, and the necessary forms wore gone
through without any violation of the old practice.
The Court then adjourned.

LAW AMENDMENT SOCIETY.
Last night a meeting of the Law Amendment So-
ciety was held in their rooms, 21, Regent-street; Mr.
Commissioner Fane in the chair.
Mr. STEWART said he had some important com-
munications to read from Mr. Dudley Field, contain-
ing the opinions of some of the judges of New York,
as to the operation of the new code, combining equity
and common law in one court. The first was from
Mr. Justice Sanford, who was one of the Vice-
Chancellors under the old system. The Learned
Gentleman read the opinions of Mr. Justice Sandford,
Mr. Justice Parker, and Mr. Justice Harris, the first,
who had been a Vice-Chancellor under the old sys-
tem, expressed a modified approval of the new sys-
tem; the others, who were judges in the Supreme
Courts, gave a strong and decided opinion in its fa-
vour, though they admitted that time would be neces-
sary to perfect its details. He (Mr. Stewart) thought
that these letters, even if no others were to be laid
before the society, were sufficient to warrant it in
appointing the committee, of which he had given
notice, to consider in what respect, if any, the proce-
dure and principles of our courts of law and equity
might be assimilated, taking into consideration the
provisions of the New York code. He begged to
nominate as the members of that committee, Messrs.
Fane, M. D. Hill, Creasy, Bethel], Trower, Vansit-
tart, Neale, Pigott, Stewart, IV. Hawes; Mr. Alder-
man Salomons, and Mr. Elliott.
_ _

Mr. MAC4UEEN thought the step they were called
upon to take was extremely important, not only to
that society, but to the public. "Would not the so-
ciety by appointing that committee commit itself to
the scheme which had been adopted in New York ?
That scheme had not proved successful, as not one of
the judges whose opinions had been read to them,
had expressed unqualified approval!' of it, and one at
least had expressed great doubt. The plan itself was
no new thing. More than three centuries ago it had
been propounded by Sir Thomas More, but a greater
man had disapproved of it—Lord Bacon. He was
aware the committee was merely for inquiry, but ho
thought they should pause before taking such a de
tided step. He wished it to be understood that the
society did not express any general approval of the
scheme.

Mr. TRowEE, on the contrary, hoped that the so-
ciety would distinctly say that they generally ap-
proved of the scheme.—(Hear, hear.) The opinions
of the judges were so strong that they were urgently
called upon to go fully into the subject.—(Hear,
hear.) If they looked at the philosophy of the sub-
ject, there was no essential distiction between equity
and law, and to continue separate courts was at this
period perfectly absurd.
Mr. M. D. HILL supported the motion for a com-
mittee. Even had this change not been made by the
state of New York, the question was one which in
itself challenged their most careful inquiry and deli-
berate attention. Mr. Stewart and himself had had
on interview recently with Mr. Pride, a member of
the New York Law Society, while on his way through
London to the Continent. That gentleman was op-
posed to the change, but his own experience since it
was made had made him a supporter of it. He (Mr.
Hill).did not advocate such a change in the law as, by
depriving the legal profession of fair emoluments,
would drive men of learning and ability from the pro-
fession. That would be a greater curse to the /public
than the most ingeniously.constructed system for