The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-25 00:00:00

would be caused by transferring to courts of law the juris-
diction exercised by the Court of Chancery, and expressed
his opinion that under the provisions of the bill it would be
utterly and entirely impossible for parties litigating to
obtain justice, ho said he had the highos respect for
the ability and learning of the Commo Law Com-
missioners on whose recommendations he bill was
founded, but it was not in the nature of things that they
should be acquainted with the princip'. s, practice, and
doctrine of the Court of Chancery. No could he persuade
himself that the Attorney •General had given the sanction
of his high authority to one single clause of the bill. This
measure which proposed to give courts of law the jurisdic-
tion exercised by courts of equity, instead of confining the
jurisdiction, as the Court of Equity was confined, extended
it in every possible case in which an action could be
brought. Injunctions may be applied for and granted
against threatened breaches of contract, or other injury of
such a nature, that an action at law for damages might be
made. There was no action that could be brought in a
court of common law that might not be made applicable to
the equitable jurisdiction of this bill. He deprecated a con•
fusion in law and equity, and he believed that under this
bill that confusion would arise. The judicial system of this
country was like the legislative system. Although there
might be some irregularities in each, yet under both this
country had obtained a social and political position which
made it the envy of the world. He hoped their lordships
would pause before they assented to the measure under con-
sideration.

Lord WENSLEYDALE agreed in the compliment paid
to the law commissioners in consequence of whose recom-
mendation certain salutary alterations had been made in the
administration of the law—but while he approved of what
had been already done in the way of confirming equitable
jurisdiction on the common-law courts, he still entirely
agreed with the noble lord who first addressed their lord-
ships (Lord St. Leonards) that the present bill was most
objectionable and mischievous in its tendency. He thought,
however, that the bill should be read a second time, and
that when it was before the select committee the objection-
able clauses might be struck out.
Lord CHELMSFORD agreed in all that had been said
by his noble and learned friend in opposition to this bill.
He would rave another opportunity of stating his views
on this measure, but he thought it was worth while for
their lordships to consider whether a bill of this kind—
which would make a serious alteration in the jurisprudence
of the country—should be sent to a select committee.
He thought it would be better to reject the bill altogether,
and that another bill should be brought in, including the
clauses in this bill, to which there was no objection.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said that he
never meant that there should be a general fusion of law
and equity in our courts. All that the commissioners pro-
posed by this bill, and all that he proposed was, that when
• matter of equity arose in a case tried in a court of law,
that the question should be sent to a court of equity for
adjudication ; and that when a question of law arose in a
case in a court of equity, the question of law should be sent
to a common law court to be decided upon. The noble and
learned lord, in answer to Lord Chelmsford, said that Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn called upon him, and stated that
the Common Law Judges had read his observations respect-
ing the provisions of the bill, would take it into consideration,
and furnish him with their opinions in writing. The equity
judges would also furnish him with their objections to the
measure, and when he should have received those opinions
he would lay them before their lordships. He would then
move that the bill be referred to a select committee.
The bill was then read a second time.
MARRIAGES (ENGLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.
This bill on the motion of Lord CRANWORTH, was
read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
SELLING AND HAWKING ON SUNDAY BILL.
Lord CHELMSFORD postponed his motion, that this
bill be now committed ; and gave notice that he would on
Thursday move that their lordships' house resolve itself
into committee on the measure.
Their lordships then adjourned 4 ten minutes past eight
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTEADA.Y.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Conway and Llanrwst Railway Bill was read a third

time.

The Horsham and Steyning and Beeding Roads Bill was
considered, and ordered for third reading.
The Bainbridge Junction Railway Bill was read a second
time.

The Sovereign Life Assurance Company (Stamp Duties
on Memorials) went through committee.

NEW WRIT.

On the motion of Mr. MOWBRIY, a new writ was
ordered for Berks, in the room of Capt. Vernon, deceased.

PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented in favour of and against
the Wine Licensing Bill, against the extension of the Bleach
and Dyeing Works Bill to Ireland, against the abolition of
church-rates, in favour of and against legalising marriage
with a deceased wife's sister, from medical practitioners in
Surrey praying for a more adequate remuneration to medi-
cal officers employed in poor-law unions, for the extension
of jurisdiction in bankruptcy to county courts.
JAPAN.

'Mr. B. COCHRANE gave notice that on the motion for
the adjournment of the house on Friday, the 4th May, he
would ask the Government what steps were taken with a
view to protect British commerce in Japan.
REGISTRATION OF BIRI HS AND DEATHS, &c.
(IRE L AN D).
Lord NAAS gave notice that on an early day ho would
move for leave to bring in a bill to assimilate the registra-
tions of births, deaths, and marriages in Ireland with the
law of this country.