The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-20 00:00:00

ittnins minis

LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1845.

The House of Lords met at Five o'Clock.
The Public Museums Bill went through Committee
On the motion of Earl FITZWILLIAM, a Select Com
mittee was ordered to be appointed, to inquire into the
representations aad complaints of landowners, whose
lands were intersected by railways.
Lord BROUGHAM then laid on the table his two Bills
for a reform in the civil and criminal law, and in so doing
took occasion to go into a lengthened history of the
law reforms which had been effected during the course
of the last twenty-five years. His Lordship paid a just
tribute of admiration to those eminent men, who by
their labours had so materially contributed to reform our
system of jurisprudence ; admitting that much had
been done, and contended that there were still some
things which remained to be done. His Lordship
then proceeded at great length to point out several
abuses still subsisting in our system of civil and criminal
jurisprudence, for each of which he suggested an ap-
propriate remedy, and concluded a lengthened, but elo-
quent and argumentative speech, by bringing in eight
Bills, which were read a first time, and ordered to be
printed.
The House of Commons met at Four o'clock.
Lord LOFTUS took the oaths and his seat for Wood-
stock, and Sir R. W. W. WYNNE took the oaths and his
seat for Derbyshire.
A new writ was issued for Downshire in the room of
the Earl of HILSBOROUGH, now Marquis of DOWNS-
SHIRE.
Mr. FERRAND withdrew the amendment which he had
given notice that he should propose on the motion for
the third reading of the Maynooth Bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then moved for the ap-
pointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the pro-
ceedings in the case of Howard v. Gossett, in an action
against the Sergeant-at-Arms, in which the Court of
Queen's Bench had recently given judgment against the
Sergeant.
After a few words from Lord HowlcK and Sir R.
INGLIS the motion was agreed to.
On the order of the day for the third reading of the
Maynooth Bill being read,
Mr. EWART moved, as an amendment, that, while it
is expedient to open all the public educational establish-
ments of Ireland to the Catholics, to reduce to its due
dimeasions the Irish Church, and to establish entire civil
and religious equality between Great Britain and Ire-
land, it is not advisable to extend the principle of making
any religious denomination endowed by and dependent
on the State.
Mr. MARSLAND seconded the amendment, which
was, however, negatived without a division.
Mr. BANKES then moved that the Bill be read a third
time that day six months. He considered that the Bill
led directly to the endowment of the Catholic clergy,
and might lead to the seating of a Catholic monarch on
the throne. Ile defied the Government to dissolve the
Parliament. They dared not go to the country on this

question.
Mr. M`GEACHY had considered the question most
anxiously, and had resolved to support the third read-
ing of the Bill. It was not a question of theology, but a
question of justice, and justice demanded that they
should pass this measure.
A long discussion ensued, in the course of which the
House was addressed by Captain MANGLES, Mr. B.
ESCOTT, Mr. SPOONER, Mr. C. BULLER, Sir VALEN-
TINE BLAKE, and other Hon. Members. The debate
was then adjourned.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of.
The House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'Clo;:k.

Among the orders of the day for the present week
we perceive, with pleasure, some that bespeak, on the
part of those who have moved them, a just appreciation
of, and sympathy for, the interests and the comforts of
the poorer classes of society. Of the latter, we may
instance, for an example, the Committee on Mr. W.
COWPER'S " Field Gardens Bill," appointed for the 23d
instant, and upon the merits of which we have already
expressed a strong opinion. To be sure—against the
satisfaction which this entry in the House of Commons'
paper affords us, we must set the orders for the second
readings, respectively, of the " Commons' Inclosure"
and the " Drainage of Lands" Bills. But we are so re-
luctant to believe that, at this time of day, the House
can be brought to sanction measures of legislation so
directly and arbitrarily interfering with the prescriptive
rights and enjoyments of the poor, that we shall rather
assume that these Bills are not destined to attain the
maturity of law. Among orders of the day of the former
character, namely, those which have regard to the inte-
rests of the poorer classes, we must notice with our hearty
approbation— Ist, the intention of Mr. HUME to move
in Committee on the Justices' Clerks and Clerks of the
Peace Bill, " that all fees payable in criminal proceed-
ings shall, after the passing of such Bill, be abolished ;"
and 2d, the contemplated proposal of Captain PECRELL'
in the same Committee, to insert a clause in such Bill to
disqualify magistrates' clerks from acting as agents for
the election of Members of Parliament, and to provide
that petty sessions shall not be held in inns or public-
houses.

—With regard to the payment of fees in criminal pro-
ceedings, we are not quite aware of the general scope
and details of Mr. HUME'S clause. But beyond all doubt
it is the most cruel of all the anomalies that are incor-
porated into the system of our criminal judicature, to
exact fees either from the promoters or the objects of
criminal proceedings, where the result is to establish the
necessity for their institution. If that necessity be
made out, the promoter is net merely justified, but he
has performed a public duty in instituting such pro-
ceedings. Why should ho be mulcted in the costly
charges he is liable to through preferring an indictment,
when upon every principle of legal and municipal polity,
he has done service to the commonweal by prosecuting
the case ? We do not enter here into any considerations
touching the liabilities, civil and even penal, a party
unjustly or vexatiously instituting criminal proceedings
ought to remain under. That is another and a wider
question, and perhaps we are already going further than
Mr. IhmtE will feel called upon to push his proposition.
Nevertheless, the abstract principle undoubtedly is to be
maintained to this extent. But to compel the party,
against whom the criminal proceedings are set in motion,
to pay fees in addition to the pecuniary fine, or other
penalty, which he may be adjudged to suffer is a cruel
absurdity, t,., be equalled only by that refinement of judi-
cial cruelty in the institutions of China, which requires
the delinquent who has just been sentenced to be
strangled or decapitated to return his acknowledgments
to the Court for the justice it has been pleased to exer-
cise in his case ; and exacts of the sufferer under the

recent discipline of the bamboo the additional suf-
fering of tendering his courteous thanks to the
public executioner for the trouble which he has occa-
sioned to that august officer. In justice to the laws of
the Chinese, however, we must own, in common fair-
ness, that the mockery and cruelty of insisting upon
these compulsory civilities are equalled, at least, by the
more studied hardship and insult of exacting fees fur
justices' clerks, or clerks of the peace, and other func-
tionaries, under the ostensible designation of " costs',
in criminal informations under the game-laws, or on
charges of trespass and damage under local and in-
closure Acts, or miserable cases of petty larceny, pilfer-
ings, such as prompts the bouseless wayfarer perishing
from sold and exposure to collect half-a-dozen dry twigs