The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-12 00:00:00

IRISH JURY RILL.

The Earl of WicKr.ow said, that seeing the noble viscount
(the Home Secretary) in his place, he had a question to put to
Mina on a subject of some importance, and on which a great
deal of feeling had been excited in Ireland. A bill had been
brought up to their lordships last session, entitled " the Irish
Jury Bill; " and he recollected that it was considered of ex-
treme importance, inasmuch as it affected the general admi-
nistration of justice in Ireland. The bill was referred to a
select committee of their lordships, of which he had the ho-
nour to be a member, and on the, suggestion of a noble lord,
who also sat on that committee, it was considered advisable
that the opinion of the Irish judges on a subject of so much im
portance to the admiuistratiou of the law in Ireland should be
known. The chairman of the committee accordingly referred
the subject to the judges for their opinions. Now, what he
(the Earl of Wicklow) wished to kuow was (if the question
were not improper), whether that decision had yet been re-
ceived, and if so, whether it was of such a nature as to warrant
government in bringing forward that bill again in its former
agape, or with some alterations in its provisions?
Lord MELBOURNE said that undoubtedly it was the intention
of ministers to bring
.forward a measure without delay for regu-
lating the jury laws in Ireland. He could not take upon turns
self to say that it would be precisely similar to that introduced
iu the course of last session ' • he believed, indeed, that some
alterations had been suggested in its provisions by the judges.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS said that it afforded him
great pleasure to be enabled to give a complete exculpation of
the conduct of the rector of Portlop, which had lately fallen
under the animadversion of the noble baron (Lord King).
This exculpation was founded ou communications which he had
received from the rev. gentleman, and from many respectable
persons in the neighbourhood; amongst the rest from Sir Tho-
mas Acland, whose testimony would impart credit to any state,
. went. It appeared from these communications, that not only
no attempt nod been made by the rector to levy tithe on fish,
but that no excitement on the subject of tithes existed in the
parish at all, and that the rev. gentleman, who had been so
falsely accused, had ever since been exercising his duties there.
He trusted that the noble baron would express his sorrow at
having been the means of calumniating the rev. rector.
Lord Kiro expressed his acknowledgments to the right rev.
,relate for having shown him the letters to which he had al-
laded, but what part of his (Lord King's) statement did they
contradict? Why, in none of those letters had a word been
said of the burning in effigy of the rector's proctor. The letter
Irons the rector, indeed, stated, that he (the rector) had merely
a casual conversation with the fishermen. Now, he (Lord
Kin") had distinctly stated, that, on the demand of tithe on
the Esh, the rector's proctor had been burnt in effigy. Why, it
might as well be said that the burning was a casual meeting be-
tween the effigy and the fire, as that the demand was a casual
conversation between the rector and the fishermen.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS insisted that he had pro-
duced a complete exculpation of the rev. gentleman, and such,
he was sure, it must appear to every noble lord who heard it.
- Lord WYNFORD said, that, as far as he understood, the de-
mand which was made for tithe in the instance in question was
merely a custom—a mere form—which was never enforced.
Lord KING observed, that, in the conversation which had oc-
curred on this subject before, it had been said that if the leiy-
iug of tithe on fish were authorised by law, it could be enforced,
if not, it would be impossible to obtain it.' Now, what he (Lord
King) stated was, that for insisting on that demand alone the
proctor'svas burnt in effigy.
LAW REFORM BILLS.
At the suggestion of the Lord CHANCELLOR, Lord WYNFORD
postponed the second reading of his bill for effecting a reduc-
tion in the cost of suits at common law till Tuesday, the 26th
of March. The reason assigned for this ifostonement was, the
absence of the two noble and learned lordsp Eldon and Lynd-
-Utast.
Lord PLtisixarr expressed his anxious desire to give all the
assistance in his power towards arranging the different pro-
visions of the bill, but hoped it was not intended to interfere
with the equity courts.
Lord WYNFORD assured the noble and learned lord that no
such interference was contemplated by his measure.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose to move the first reading
of a bill for remedying (as we understood) certain inconvent-
-ences in souse branches of the law; but the noble and learned
lord spoke iu so feeble and indistinct a tone, owing probably to
. indisposition, that the precise nature of the bill could not he
iscertained. As far as we could collect, the noble and learned
lord said that the subject was one of great importance, but that
he would then limit himself solely to stating the objects to which
it was intended to apply the bill, without indulging in much
-remark. The first and principal object was to carry into effect
the recommendations made by the law commissioners, a most
useful body of 'men, who, some years past, had been appointed
by the other house of Parliament to inquire into the state of the
-common law. One of the most important of these recommen-
dations related to the practice of special pleading; and
wit inh
con-
formity with this, the bill would invest the judges the
-power of regulating that practice. The next object in view
was also most important, inasmuch as it affected the old statu-
tory limitations) which were td' be remedied by the bill, as far
as regarded their duration, and to be fixed in cases of bond at
.10 years. Another provision of the bill was directed to remedy
the hardships to which the sureties of Crown debtors were
,liable under the existing system. They were frequently
sufferers from the great delay in making the demands upon
toe parties for whom they became answerable; the princi-
: pal debtors were often left for 40 or 50 or even for 70
• years without being called to account, though they might during
. that period have been in a state of perfect solvency. The con-
sequence of this delay often was, that demands were made on
the sureties after the insolvency of the principal debtors, which
would have been superseded had the principals been applied to
iii proper time. There was another provision in the bill which
would enable parties to go into the facts of their cases without
the expense attendant upon proceeding with an action, which
would enable them to put these facts upon record in such a
manner as to take the opinion of the court upon them, and re-
ceive its judgment, in cases were that could be done without
incurring the unnecessary expense of bringing an action.
There were various other provisions in the bill made, with a
view to render proceedings in cases shorter, and to lessen their
. expense. He did not feel it necessary, at its present stage, to
go into all the details of this bill, but there were some further
striking improvements proposed to be introduced by it that he
thought it right now to mention. One of these provisions was,
and he considered it a very great improvement indeed, to enable
_juries se find a verdict for tne interest, as well as for the prin-
cipal, provided that a demand had been made for such interest
previous to the taking of the action; and it further provided,
that the interest founded by the jury, if they should so think fit
to find, under the direction of the learned judge presiding,
should be from the time of the demand. In cases of this kind,
it present, where a security did not expressly, or upon the face
of it, show that the interest was payable, a jury could not find
for the interest, and in that respect the law courts of England
were peculiarly distinguished from the law courts in other
countries. Another great improvement which was proposed to
be• effected by this bill, consisted in the facilitating proceed-
ings by a reference to arbitration. Their lordships were aware
that as the law at present stood, a reference to arbitration was
oh extremely difficult thing to procure. This bill provided
that arbitration should be lawful in certain cases, and it gave
,the arbitrators the power of summoning and examining wit-
nesses upon oath, and of deciding upon all the facts of the
case. There was, however, no compulsory clause for arbitra-
-tion contained in this bill, similar to that contained in the
bill which had been introduced into that house last session
;by his late lamented noble and learned friend Lord Tenter-
That compulsory clause was omitted from the pre-
'dee. hear,) as were also the concomitant clauses,
scat bill, (hear,
enabling the 'court to compel arbitration in certain cases,
There was, he repeated, no compulsory power given by this bill,
except in a case of arbitration whereen to b one party
fproceeding
against another, full time had been givring arthe
'bets of the case as ordered. There was another provision for
fiaeilitatiug, the proving of deeds and oth.er documents, whether
written or printed, and it provided that, in cases where such do-
cuments had been. proved already, it would not be neway stab cessary. ta
o
bring down witnesses fur the purpose. Um own a

great deal of the expense of trying actions under the existing
system. There was anether clause, which provided that where
a judge thought fit that parties should not be subjected to the
expense of bringing their actions before the courts of law in
Westminster, he should order such actions to be tried before
the sheriffs in county courts with the assistance of juries,—thus
materially diminishing the expense attendant upon such pro-
ceedings. This last provision, their lordships would perceive,
was a most impoitant step towards the establishment of local
and cheap jurisdictions throughout the country ; but if he
thought that this provision of the bill at all anticipated or ren-
dered supererogatory that more effective and general arrange-
ment for the establishment of such local jurisdictions through-
out.the country which he (the Lord Chancellor) had brought
forward in that house the session before last, and which he had
formerly brought forward in the House of Commons,—if he
thought, he repeated, that this provision in any way took the
place of that measure, he should not have inserted it in the pre-
sent bill; but he considered, on the contrary, that this provision
was quite consistent with that other and more general measure,
and that it would supply some points that might be necessary
to render that measure more effective. He would show that
to be the case when he should have the honour of introducing
that other bill, which he hoped he should be able in a few days
to lay before their lordships. If he was not greatly deceive-LI,
there could not be a more useful, as he was quite certain that
there could not be a more necessary, measure than the one
which tended to the establishment of local jurisdictions through-
out the country for the trial of all actions for a small amount,
except some cases touching title, which should be left to the
superior courts of law. One of the great and chief objects of
legislation should be to render justice cheap and easy of access,
and he considered the provision in the bill he now held in his
hand as rather ancillary to the general measure to which he had
alluded than as at all interfering. with its necessity.
The bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
—Adjourned.
FRIDAY. _ _ _

.Petitions were presented by the Bishop of London
_from
Rushbrook, Suffolk ; the Duke of Richmond from lladdington-
shire ; the Earl of Albemarle from Stoney Strafford; the Earl
of Roseberry from Dalkeith, praying for the abolition of Negro
Slavery; Lord King from the householders of St. Mary-le-
Strand, praying for a repeal of the Assessed Taxes; the Duke
of Richmond from a place in Fife,. Lord Bexley from St.
Marv, Newington; the Bishop of Worcester from Battersea;
the Bishop of London from Hackney, a parish in Essex, and
chapel. in. Bethnel Green; from ;all Saints' Poplar, and from
several other places in Sussex, and one from Perth; Earl
Grey from Walworth, and another place in Surrey; the Arch-
bishop of Dublin from the Archdeacon and Clergy of Dublin,
praying for legislative interference against the violation of the
Sabin bath: •
The Earl of RoDEN, in presenting a petiton for the better
observance of the Sabbath, took the Opportunity of alluding to
the governMent scheine of education for Ireland. He said he
had a petition to present' on that subject, but that he would
delay offering it to the notice of the house until a most rev.
prelate, (the Archbishop of Dublin,) who was then in town,
should be present; he therefore took that opportunity of giving
notice, that on Tuesday next he should bring forward that
petition, when he hoped the most rev. prelate would be in his
place. The subject of the petition, the noble lord observed,
was one of extreme importance, and he trusted that the most
rev. prelate would be enabled to give an explanation to the
house and to the country of the effects which had resulted from
the measure. It was a question of equal interest to the people
of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the public were na-
turally most anxious to be informed whateffect the new system,
which had now been a year in operation, had produced.
Petitions were also presented by the Earl of Shrewibury,
from various places iu Ireland praying for the abolition of
Tithes, that the Irish coercise bill may not be passed, and in
favour of vote by Ballot; and by The Bishop of London from
St. Mary-at-Hill, and St. Andrews in the city, on the employ-
ment of Infant labour in Factories. When the House adjourned.