The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-31 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAATENri.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Border Counties Railway Bill and the Border Union
Railway Bill were considered as reported, and ordered for
third reading.
Purdy's Disabilities ReMoval Bill was read a second
time.

PETITIONS.
Petitions were presented praying that measures might be
taken to prevent the opium traffic with China ; against
the Ministerial Reform Bill; against rating Literary Insti-
tions • against the Local Assessments Bill ; and against
military salutes to religious processions.
QUEEN'S COLLEGES (IRELAND).
Mr. BEAMISH moved for a copy of the correspondence
which had passed between the presidents of the Queen's
colleges in Ireland and the Irish Government, in reference
to the residence of the presidents in their respective colleges.
—Agreed to.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.
On the motion of Mr. KIRK, the following returns were
ordered :—Copy of the minute of the Commissioners of the
Board of National Education in Ireland, dated the 7th of
August, 1848, dismissing William Kenealy. then master of
a national school at Churchtown, county of Cork, for hav-
ing written an anonymous inflammatory placard; together
with the letter or letters of Mr. Gould Adams, J.P., and
the report of Head Inspector Butler, and of all other docu-
ments and correspondence having reference to the said
minute : And, of the verdict of the jury in an action for
libel, brought by William Kenealy against Durham Dunlop
and James Baxter, and tried at the Kilkenny assizes on the
13th day of March, 1859.
TRIAL BY JURY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. DUNLOP, in moving the second reading of this bill,
stated that the measure which was thrown out last night
in the House of Lords was quite distinctive from his mea-
sure. The jury system in Scotland was different from the
English system as regarded unanimity. Five years ago he
introduced a bill providing that a verdict might be received
from nine jurors out of twelve, and this system had been
found to work very well in Scotland. The object of the bill
introduced into the House of Lords was to apply this system
to England, but it had been rejected on the ground that the
feeling in this country was favourable to unanimity. In a case of
difference of opinion it was the majority that gave way to the
minority, or if the majority were not induced to give way, the
minority being generally crotchety men, it led to the jury
being locked up. Now the object of his bill was, in the
case of Scotland, to alter the six hours allowed for delibera-
tion to three hours, and he hoped that the house would con-
sent to read it a second time.
Mr. MONCREIFF agreed that in most eases, where,
after long deliberation, a verdict had been given by a ma-
jority of nine to three, the same result would have occurred
if the time for deliberation had been shorter. The present
system in Scotland which had existed for five years gave
rise to the risk of jurors anxious to get away by a particular
train to give way to the minority, and though it was quite
right to empanel a jury for a sufficient time to provide for
due consideration, he considered that three hours was suf-
ficient for the purpose, and he was sure the bill would be
productive of great benefit.
The LORD ADVOCATE assured the hon. gentleman
who moved the second reading of the bill, that he had
earned by the change which he introduced in the jury sys-
tem four or five years ago, the gratitude of the people of
Scotland, and he (the Lord Advocate) was prepared to give
his cordial assent to the measure now under consideration.
The question before the house was not whether or not an
unanimous jury was the most appropriate for the trial of
causes, but whether the time for confining jurors for deliber-
ation should be further limited, and the change proposed
met with the approval of the Lord Justice General.
Mr. JAMES said he had moved for certain returns in
reference to the bill which was discussed in the other house,
but they had sufficient security by the observations of those
who had spoken on this question against any evil arising
in Scotland from the change now proposed. But he was of
opinion that to extend the system of Scotland to England
would be decidedly bad.
Mr. BUCHANAN remarked that the prejudices of the
people in Scotland were in favour of a bare majority in
juries, and he thought the introduation of a system, pro-
viding that a majority of three-fourths should return a ver-
dict, would be a desirable change in the law.
Mr. MACKIE said he had introduced the system of
three-fourths of the jury giving a verdict in civil cases in
New South. Wales, and the change had worked exceedingly
we"

Mr. MELLOR said the unanimity in civil cases was
more apparent than real, and he should have been glad to
have had an opportunity of discussing, upon the bill which
was introduced into the Lords, the means of giving the
jury a method of escaping without a violation of their con-
scientious opinions.
Mr. COWAN thought that it was time, in the nineteenth
century, that they got rid of the present practice of compel-
ling a jury to return an unanimous verdict.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said his present opinion was against
any change in the law of England of unanimity in criminal
cases, but he believed that some change might be made in
the law in relation to juries, to get rid of the absurd sys-
tem of starving and freezing. He thought that if they
gave refreshments to jurors they would be much more
likely to agree in their verdict.
The bill was then read a second time.
LAW ASCERTAINMENT BILL.
Mr. DUNLOP moved the second reading of this bill, and
explained that its object was to provide for the settlement
in Scotland of different points of law requiring the opinion
of foreign courts.
Mr. MALINS believed that the bill would have a most
beneficial effect.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD thought this measure if car-
ried out would be a substantial improvement of the law.
The LORD ADVOCATE also expressed his approval of
the principle of the bill.
Mr. BOUVERIE considered that the bill was much too
generally drawn. The power proposed to be given might be
advantageously applied to the suprior courts, 4,ut tho bill
as it stood would extend it also to courts of inferior juris-
diction.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL quite agreed in the ob.
jection, and pointed out other defects in the details of
the bill, but expressedhis concurrence in the principle.
After a few words from Mr. DUNLOP in reply, the bill
was read a second time.
TRAMWAY (IRELAND) BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill.
The clauses up to 39 were agreed to.
To clause 40, which provides for the seizure or detention
of persons trespassing on the tramway,
Mr. DE VERE objected on the ground that the words
" wilfully or wantonly" were not inserted, and there might
be no separation between the tramway and the public road.
Mr. Sergeant DEASY suggested that the clause should
be negatived.
After a brief conversation the clause was negatived ac-
cordingly. The remaining clauses were afterwards agreed
to.

Sir R. FERGUSON moved the addition of a clause pro-
viding for the repayment of deposits during the progress of
the work on security being given.
The clause was agreed to.
The following clause was also added to the bill on the
motion of Sirß. FERGUSON :—"Wlenever it shall be neces-
sary to move any of the officers ormen of her Majesty's forces
of the line, ordnance corps,marines militia, or of theconsta-
bulary or police force, by any tramway the company shall, and
they are hereby required to permit such forces respectively,
with their baggage, stores, arms, ammunition, and other
necessaries and things, to be conveyed at the usual hours of
starting, at such prices or upon such conditions as may from
time to time be contracted for between her Majesty's Prin •
cipal Secretary of State for the War Department or the
Inspector General of Constabulary in Ireland, or either of
them, and such tramway company, for the conveyance of
such forces, on the production of a route or order for their
conveyance signed by the proper authorities."
The house then resumed, and the bill, with amendments,
was reported.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that so many amendments
were to be proposed upon this bill that he was inclined to
agree to the motion which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boo-
verie) had placed on the table for referring it to a select
committee. He thought that this measure, and the ono
which had come down from the House of Lords, should be
investigated by the same committee.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL approved of this course,
and stated that when the Government bill came on for
second reading on Friday next, he should move that it be
read a second time pro forma, and take the opportunity of
explaining the course the Government proposed to take in
respect to it. He apprehended, however, that there would
be no objection to refer it to a select committee, with the
bill of the noble lord the member for the city of London.
Mr. BO UVERIE was satisfied that the only way in
which this question could be properly dealt with was by
referring.the Government bill and the bill of the noble lord
to a select committee.
After some remarks from Mr. CRAWFURD,
Mr. HEADLAM said there was a general feeling
throughout the country that a bill on this subject should be
passed in the present session, but if the committee called
witnesses no measure could pass this year.
Mr. MOFFATT thought they had the full facts of the
case before them to enable them to legislate upon this ques-
tion, and he objected to the committee calling witnesses, on
the ground that it would indefinitely postpone legislation.
Mr. MALINS quite agreed as to the inexpediency of
calling witnesses before the committee. A commission
investigated the subject in 1856, and ho thought the com-
mittee should consider the evidence taken before that com-
mission and the reports of other commissioners as affording
sufficient information to legislate upon.
Mr. VANCE having offered some observations,
Mr. S. ESTCOURT reminded the house that the ques-
tion, whether or not evidence should be taken, was a ques-
tion which should be left to the committee to decide.
Mr. LOWE observed that there might be points in the
inquiry upon which evidence must be taken.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL remarked that they had
got nearly all the information that could be required by the
committee in the library of the house, and if they required,
as they might require, to take evidence upon certain points,
it would then be time enough for them to come to the house
for leave to call witnesses.
Lord J. RUSSELL agreed that the committee should
not have power in the first instance to call witnesses. The
bill was then ordered to be referred to a select committee.
ADMIRALTY COURT BILL.
Mr. HADFIELD, in moving the second reading of this
bill, stated that its object was to throw open the Admiralty
Court to the legal profession at large. The proc-
tors had received £72,000 a year as compensation
for loss of practice by the passing of the Divorce and Ma-
trimonial Causes Bill; but if they were to receive a com-
pensation of £lO,OOO for the loss of practice in the Admi-
ralty Court he would recommend that the monopoly should
continue.
Mr. MALINS said there could be no objection to the
principle of the bill, but he explained that, for the compen-
sation paid to proctors for loss of practice by the Divorce
Bill, a fund was provided from fees, through which no
burden was imposed upon the public.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not oppose the
second reading of the bill, but declined upon that occasion
to enter into a discussion upon the tuestion of compensa-
tion. He stated that the subject to which the bill referred
was now under the consideration of the Government, and
he suggested to the hon. member that he should not pro-
ceed further with the bill till the Government had an-
nounced their intention.
The bill was then read a third time, and ordered to be
committed this day fortnight.
CHARITABLE USES BILL.
Mr. HADFIELD moved the second reading of this bill,
the object of which he stated to be to Dive cheap, easy, and
effectual means for making charitable bequests for schools,
institutions, and places of worship.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said there were diffi-
culties in details of the bill, which would have to be consi-
dered when it got into committee, but he should offer no
objection to the second reading.
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed this day three weeks.