The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-04-19 00:00:00

licousE or Loripa.

TUESDAY, APRIL 16,
The Earl of Ripon was introduced by the Earls of Morley
and Cawdor, and took his oaths and his seat.
Petitions praying for the abolition of negro slavery were pre-
sented by the Earl of Morley frnin Devenaport; by the Earl of.
Albemarle, from several parishes in Suffolk; by the Earl of
Eldon, from several parishes in Dorsetshire ; by Lord Suffield,
from 51 different places; by the Marquis of Lansdowne, from
Melksham, Chard, and some other places; by the Duke of
Richmond, from the Wesleyan Methodists of -*Horsham; and
by Lord Viscount Melbourne, from Stirlin.g.
The Earl of Motley and the Bishop of London presented pe-
titions in favour of the Factories' Bill, the first from Devonport,
itiffffie latter Han Well, -Middlesex. -
Earl Digley and the bishop of Lichfield presented petitions
against the Beer Bill; the first from Sherborue, Dorsetshire' •
the latter from different places iu Staffordshire and Warwick-
1 •
Tte. Earl of Rosebery presented two petitions from Scotland,
peas ing for an alteration in the system of church patronage now
prevalent in that wintry.
Petitions for the better observance of the. Sabbath were pre-
. seated bY the Earl of Resebery, from a parish in Scotland; by
. the Earl of Eldon, from a parish in Doreetshire.; by the Bishop
of Lic'hfie d,from Nuneaton, Burton-upon-Trent, and other
'• dace's ; by the Duke of Somerset, from 'Taunton; by Lord
Beiley, from the Wesleyan Methediste of Bristol; by the Bi-
shdp of St. Asaph, from seven parishes in Montgomeryshire;
and by the Bishop of London, front St. Leonard's, Shoreditch,
St. John'S, blempatead, New Ross, Bridewell Precinct, and
other places.
Lord MELBOURNE gave notice that he would, on Thursday
.. meat, trove the third reading of the Irish Juries' Bill.
COMMON LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Lord N.Yreteoao said, that in moving the second reading of
the bill which he had brought into the house, he shodld not have
• troubled their lordships with many observations had he not
been given to understand that it was to be met with opposition.
This bill was entitled a bill for diminishing :expenses, and pre-
venting delasss.in suits_o f common laW. Now, it this bill-were
calculated to attain those objects, there could be no valid oh-
: jectidu 'urged against it. Both, the evils which this bill was de-
signed to reniedy notoriously existed. Formerly it was thought
that lasi, Could not he"ton e.spensive, now a very different opinion
prevailed, and -verysjostlyS kle didnot believe that a man ever
existed WhO was favourable to the law's delays.. He was con-
' vieleed, that if this bill Were carried into effect it would prevent
• nine out of ten actions which were instituted from proceeding
tet.;els,l;, and that even in those cases where. the parties deter-
- mined-to .proceed, it Would diMinish their expenses at least one
_half— _The great expenses of : law were occaeiotred-by- the-plead-
ings, the evidence,. and the proof of the. deeds. It had been his
intention to have introduced into this bill clauses regulating
the. pleadings; but, in consequence of a recOmmendation.of the
iaxr commissioners, that difficulty had been disposed of in a bill
which had already obtained the sanction of their lordships. The
next cause of expense was the bringing up- of witnesses- at the
..asai4s to prove facts which-ought not to be disputed, and which
would not be disputed hereafter, if his bill were made law. The
first clause of his bill made it competent for either' piaintiff or
.disteedant, with consent of the court, to examine each other
. upon the. matters in dispute. This could be done at present it
Mt expense of 12200;. but under his bill it would be done at an
ezippuse comparatively trifling. By filing a bill in equity a
.plaintiff could. at present compel a defendant to answer upon
and the defendant, by filing a cross bill against him in re-
.turn, ruight,compel 444.6 answer in return; but the mischief
of system was, that whoever filed the bill must pay the cost
of the answer. . He would give to the common. law judges all
the, power of protecting witnesses thus examined, which was
.now enjoyed by the jodgee in.our courts of equity. He would
gi-Ve them the power of imposing any condition they might
think-rightete- protect witnesses in tne-- answers thZy might
give to the. interrogatories put to them. His lordsuip_ then
pointed out, at some length, the advantages likely to • arise
teem this change in our present legal practice. Who was it
knew- all the facts of the case ? The plaintiff and the defen-
dant : if, therefore; theyssecre examined; all the *facts would
come out, and upon them tl* court might pronounce jiidgment.
Tie, appealed to the noble lords who' were conversant • with
C:hancery practice, whether cases were not often tried in courts
lit-equity, in which there were no witnesses but the plaintiff
And the defendant ? The whole case as to the facts being thus
.op,ened to both parties, there would be no occasion for tiion to
.go;to,trial. at a ruinous expense to both parties. It would fre-
quently happen that all the facts necessary for the final judg-
ment would come out on the examination of the plaintiff and
thedefendaut. Now he proposed, that if there were no addi-
feetal facts to be made out on either side, the judges shell(' he
empowered after that examination to give. judgment at once.
Base if either party should suggest that there was an adaitional
isct to be established, then an issue should be sent doWn tb 'try
tixat fact, and that feet alone:; and • then, when :that-fact:Wel
atlffed, the court should, proceed to give its decision. Repro-
posed also, that if after hie examination was closed, a plaintiff
otea defendant, whhhatino lust, ground of. action-or of defence,
a-NO-ad -persist in maintaining the acticas from a love of litiga-
lioth be should be coMpellefftb give se'c'urity' thathe
,Would pay
all costs which his loie of litigation occasioned to his ophenent.
As under this alteration of the law the defendant wunete not:be
p:v-d-tei evade judgment, he thought that it would; be only fair
te arm the court with olswer to.eXtend to hinatime finesatiefying
it. There only eenittiad another nresieiep of the bill for him
to "explain to their lordships; and that-was an enactment. require
ing the attorney for the plaintiff to, deliver to the sheriff who
served the
_mem._ the...part itenle ra-ofethe-- dem-aft& w-hielt was
iiiiaalthe plaintiff. flaying explained the principal provi-
sionS of the
,bill he now begged to move the second re'ading,„
Lord LYNDHURST saist, that though he entertained the
greatest respect for the knowledge and wisdom of Iris noble
a.ud.leaxnest friend,: yet- he could-net persuade li nisat to give.
Isis. support to the present hill. His noble and learned friend
said that this bill .had received the approbation of the fifteen
judges; but he could assthe his liable and learned friend that
if his supposed that the opinions of the judges were fav,,nrable
to this. measure, he laboured under a 'Very erroneous impress
'don. The professed object of the bill was to prevent:dOlay
and to diminish expense,
.yet he would undertake to say that
themachinery by which it. was proposed to carry this .object
intss effect,would, tend- to increase expense and augment delay
a hundredfold. The noble and learned lord proposed to alley
this plaintiff. to :examine the defendant, and- to give the de-
fenelant, a corresponding- power. By the' present practice the
plaintiff possessed: this power, for he might file a bill fora. diis
eovety, which Was nothing more than a series-of interregates:
ries, accompanied by a Statement necessary to explain them,
and to enable the defendant to give them a full' and satisfactoryanawer. These interrogatories the defendant was obliged to
answer, and in his opinion it was impossible to adopt a better
proceeding. The noble and learned' toed was guilty of great
exaggeration when he. said that a bill for-a discovery cost i:20().
There might be some complicated 'Cases, cumin through a se-
ries of years, which would occasion considerabm expeuse to
the parties concerned: but the noble and learned lord showed
• fhat he hadnot taken proper means to inform himself of the
tact when ho stated that the ordinary expense of proceeding by
Lill; amounted to E.2+00. It was then proposedlo substittice, in
the place of the present practice, rii,rt rda eXalliinatiOtt:c taken
hafore a commissioner, in the country, and tranStnitten to
the tribunal which was to decide upon the case. Thus,
the advantage which was derived from the sires core ex-
aminations being, taken .in the presence of those. who were
appointed to adjudicate upon the point in dispute would be lost,
and he, would venture' to sag, that the mode of interrogatoiy
proposed by the noble and learned lord would irk many cases
tern. out ,to be ithracticable, and where practicab!te would be
tiund infinitely interior to the course at present pursued. There
were. many limitations to answers • which had :been settle&by the
recisions of the most eminent judges, .throngh the course of
ventoriese but:the noble and learned ford, disregarding all these
circumstances, had embodied in his bill u most crude.' clause,
which admitted only une .or: two broad exceptions, and left it to
a judge in. chambers- to correct the injustice which must flow
from an enactment of so imperfect a nature. By this bill a
commissioner-was appointed, who was to travel within five miles
si( the parties in the cause, and examine them. All this was
done to save time and expense. After the examination was
completed it must be sent up to Loudon. Then the question
'arose whether the interrogatpries had been fully answered: and
tale question might be ar,euedby counsel before a judge in cham-
bers; and an appeal was allowed from his decision to the whole
court. Again, counsel might object before the commissioner to
the sufficiency of an answer; and in the event of the commis-
sioner deciding that the answer was sufficient, an appeal might
be enade to a judge in chambers, and from him to the whole
court; and all: this was enacted by a bill the object of which
was to save time and expense. On these grounds, he objected
'Lott" to the principle and the machineryof the bill. ifhe mode of
examination at present through the meth= Of.a bill and answer
s, as much more simple, cottiplete, and satisfactory, than the
ni°de:proposed liy-the noble and learned lord; and the nnaelo-
eereebs- which the principle of the noble and lore's bill
was-tole carried into operation would be found( infinitely more
-pensive than the:present :system. He slibtri thet`efOre move
an amendment that the bill be read a second time that day
sic months.