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

The Earl of Et DoN said, that it was impossible for him to
give his assent to the noble and learned lord's plan of allowing
the plaintiff and defendant to examine each other. He believed
:,that nothing had been more beneficial to the suiti.p or this
country than the endeavour. which had always been made to
keep the administration of` justice in law and equity quite sepa-
rate. He should oppose the bill, because lie considered that it
would increase, bpth delay and expense in legal.proceedingsi
andTbecause he never wished to see the: practice of a court of
equity introdneettinSo. a_court Of_ectunnon_lizt..
The LORD CHANcEtton said he agreed with his noble and
learned friend who had moved the amendment, that there was
a good,deal in the present bill, opt to say requiring further con-
sideration, but positively objectionable, both as respected the
.machinery, and the length to which the principle of the hill was
carried out, enablinVhe plaintiff and defendant in every suit,
without exeefiflon, reciprocalryti examine each other ; Tiff Still
he could ;not help thinking that. it would be advisable, especially
as the bill had, on a former occasion, passed their lordships'.
house, to allow it to go into a committee, and thus give the no-
ble and learned lord an opportunity of limiting the extent of
:the measure, and of amending.
_its machinery. It would then
be for their lordships to consier whether- the bill could, after
being amended, with, safety be adopted. Such being the 'Very
general view. which he,fook. of the. present question, he would
ouly. furthe.r. detain their. lordships by observing, that the au-
thority of the judges, generally. speaking, was very great and
almost overpowering when given in favour of any proposed
_amendment of_the lawi but- that. that authority, when thrown
into the opposite scale,. and given against any proposed amend-
ment of the law, was then not of so overpowering a nature.—
This arose from the very natural and excusable reluctance en-
tertained by those learned personages to sanctiouchanges with-
out mature deliberation, and from the probability that their pro-
fessional habits would induce them to carry thaffeeling a little
too far. He was, however, not aware that any opinion had been
pronounced by the judges against the present bill; all that he
had understood the noble and learned lord (Lyndhurst) to say
was; that the statement that they had expressed themselves in
favour of the measure was incorrect.
Lord WyNFonri said, that whatever faults might be found in
the -machinery of the bill, lie was not to blame for them. The
machinery was not his, but waS entirely.founded on the recom-
mendations of the common law commissioners. lie thought
that he had a right to say, that some of the judges were favour.
able to the measure, because the greater part of those who had
joined in recommending it as law commissioners were now
judges, and he was not aware that they had changed their opi-
•nions on this point. But he thought that no objections to the
details of the bill ought to induce the house to reject the second
reading. They could be altered and amended iu the committee.
• The.gallery. was then cleared for a diVision, but none took
place ,• and we understood that Lord Lvndhurst's amendment,
that the bill be 'read a second time that day six months, was
agreed to.—Adjourned to Thursday.