The Sun.
London, England, 1869-04-22 00:00:00

LOADOI.V, THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1669.

Something practical, it may now reasonably Le
hoped, will be done in regard to the Ballot—that
Question having rassed at length into the hands of
a distinguished Politician, a man thoroughly in
earnest and thoroughly consistent. 10 Sir HENRY
BCLWER has been confided, by the unanimous deci-
sion of all the more conspicuous supporters of this
long-looked-for reform, the responsibility of bringing
it, in a substantive shape, under the consideration of
the popular branch of the Legislature. It is almost
needless to say that this trust has been placed in the
safe keeping of the right hon. member for Tamworth
unreservedly and unconditionally. To his own
better judgment, in his capacity as the
now recognised and acknowledged Leader of
the Ballot Party, has been committed
the selection of what may appear to himself the right
time and the aptest season for the re-ventilation, so to
express it, of the principle involved in this great and
(as we for one cannot but think) vitally important
measure, in the House of Commons, under circum-
stances more propitious than have ever yet presented
themselves to a Ballot advocate in Parliament. Epi-
tomising the auguries of success in a very few words
I what are they ? They are, among others, these—
The possession of power, to begin with, by the Libe-
ral Party in overwhelming numbers! The conduct
of that party by a body of Ministers who, as innova-
tors, are as daringly adventurous as have ever yet
been seated upon the Treasury Bench ! The recog-
nition among those ministers of several known and
eminent advocates of Secret Voting—one of them
(and that, too, a Cabine t Minister, as eminently placed
in the ranks of the Gpvernment as the first of the five
Secretaries of State, meaning the Secretary of State
for the home Department), being a very recent but
by no means half-hearted convert to, and advocate

of, the Ballot. With friends of the Ballot numbered
up, and numbering up, in the ranks of the Liberal
Party, as well as in the inner ranks of the Govern-
ment itself—precisely at this happy juncture in the
history of the lengthened agitation of this great
reform, the leadership of those avowedly in
favour of it, passes, by the happiest good chance

conceivable, into the hands of one pre-eminently well
qualified to conduct this great project of reform to a
fortunate i,sue. Sir HENRY BULWER, as the cham-
pion of the Ballot, has, we cannot but think, the ball,
now, fairly at his foot. To his own better judgment,
as we also cannot but conceive, must be left entirely
and absolutely the selection of the time at which he
will bring the matter thus frankly entrusted to his safe-
keeping finally and with all due deliberation under the
consideration of the Commons, and under the con-
sideration simultaneously, of course, of her MAJESTY'S
Government. Mr. LEATIIAM'S motion of a few weeks
back leading, as it did, to nothing save an empty
discussion of a matter already, as we all know, only
too often merely discussed, has in no way precluded
the acknowledged leader of the Ballot Party from
reviving the deliberate reconsideration of the matter,
in a substantial form, during the present session of the
Legislature. Sir HENRY 131.71.WER. has his name
down in connection with this subject on the
papers of the House—on the sessional programme, as
it might be called, without much extravagance. It
remained yet to be seen in what shape, and when
and how, the question will be brought forward anew
this session—if that entry already referred to is in
fact, in other words, to come to anything. Earnestly,
and we believe in no way extravagantly, we are
hopeful, now, in regard to the prospects of the
Ballot. The Hour is approaching. The Man is
There was something propitious, as it
appears to us, in the very tone and manner of
the meeting held List night in our immediate neigh-
bourhood—the first meeting of the Ballot Associa-
tion, presided over (at the Arundel 11 ill) by the
Right lion. the member for Tam worth.

come.

NOWHERE is there to be found more melancholy
evidence of human weakness than in the imperfec-
tions of human laws. The wisest of nations have
failed to reconcile strict law with the even-handed
dispensation of justice. All systems of legislation
have left certain inequalities to be filled up,
certain deficiencies to be provided for as occa-
sion requires. Various causes have been in operation
in different countries, but the result has always been
the same. Wherever courts and laws have existed, it
has been found necessary to build up by the side of
the written and unwritten law a more flexible system
of judicature to which recourse may be had
whenever the common law is found deficient. What
we call Equity is, therefore, not peculiar to any
nation. Sometimes, as in the case of Roman law,
attachment to old customs and traditions has brought
about strange compromises with the necessities of
a growing society. Thus the barren maxims and
theatrical ceremonies of the Twelve Tables were pre-
served in theory, but another system was perfected
by which they were set aside in practice. Some-
times the possible defects of the law were provided
for beforehand. The old Prussian code laid down
that whenever a judge could find no law to decide a
case he was to settle the affair to the best of
his judgment, the defect in the statutes being after-
wards attended to. In England it is certain that
some principles of equity have prevailed ever since
the time of EDGAR. Suits which the judges could
not solve were referred to the King; and after the
Conquest he referred them to his chaplain. This
functionary gradually developed into the Lord
Chancellor, and out of his jurisdiction gra-
dually arose the Courts of Equity with
their cumbrous procedure and multifarious
precedents. But whilst we thus only obeyed the
common necessity of nations, we managed, as usual,
to differ from all others in our system of equity. In
other countries no difficulty is found in making one
court answer the purposes of both law and equity.
When the principles of law fail, the same tribunal
applies the principles of equity. Thus one court
possesses all the power necessary to finally dis-
pose of any suit. But in England the two
systems of judicature are kept quite distinct.
In no case can a court of common law settle
a question in equity. Suits commenced in the
Queen's Bench have often to be continued in
Chancery. In this division and confusion we stand
alone, the amazement, but not the admiration, of the
civilised world.

It is obvious that our system must be attended
with great disadvantages. So serious, indeed, have
they become, that some time back it was resolved
to consider the means of reform, and a very power-
ful Commission, consisting of the first lawyers
of the day, was appointed to investigate this important
matter. After two years' deliberation the commis-
sion has declared our system of legal jurisdiction to
be so bad that it must be, in a manner, Americanised,
and a very radical change is proposed. Separate
Courts of Equity and Common Law are to exist
no more. All the superior tribunals, together
with the Courts of Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty,
are to be united in one great Supreme Court. The
different powers of these tribunals will be con-
solidated into one jurisdiction. In the Supreme
Court there will be no chambers for separate
classes of suits, such as the Court of
Admiralty for mercantile marine cases. The
Supreme Court will be divided into as many
chambers of justice as public business may require,
and for the sake of facilitating the change of system,