Commons Sitting of 22 February 1865

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions Reported—Courts of Justice Building [Deficiencies, &c] *; Common Law Courts (Fees)*.
Ordered—Common Law Courts (Fees)*; [39] Affirmations (Scotland) * [40].'
First Reading—Court of Chancery (Ireland) (No. 3) * [38].
Second Reading—Private Bill Costs [7]; Felony and Misdemeanor Evidence and Practice [21].
Select Committee—Private Bill Costs appointed (List of Members.)
Considered as amended—Civil Bill Courts Procedure (Ireland) Act (1864) Amendment * [29].

PRIVATE BILL COSTS BILL—(BILL 7.

  SECOND READING.
  MR. SCOURFIELD, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that he had introduced it in consequence of the Report of the Committee over which he presided last year. He made a suggestion to that Committee which did not go so far as to recommend the immediate introduction of a Bill; but the Committee, at the instance of Mr. Massey—than whom he could name no higher authority—agreed to a recommendation that a Bill should be introduced for giving costs in certain cases. At the same time, it was right that he should state that he was thoroughly convinced of the justice of the measure, in favour of which there was a great weight of authority. In 1853 a Committee, which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman now Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Cardwell), recommended "that provision should be made for the payment of costs in cases where the proceedings of any party shall appear to have been illusory, vexatious, or unwarrantable." Whenever the subject had been discussed the principle had been admitted, and the last Committee on railway matters had unanimously reported in favour of a measure of this kind. Last year he presented to the House a Bill, on the back of which was

  565
  also the name of the late Chairman of Committees, Mr. Massey; but in consequence of the lateness of the period of the Session at which it was introduced, he was induced to withdraw it. He was determined that no such objection should exist this year, and, therefore, he had brought in this Bill at the very commencement of the Session. There was some difference of opinion as to the language which should be used to describe the cases in which costs should be allowed. Besides the words "illusory," "vexatious," "unwarrantable," it was suggested that there should be introduced such words as "unfounded," "unsuitable," and "unnecessary." That might be considered in Committee. He did not care what words were used so long as they attained the object which he had in view, which was to discourage a class of persons who might be generally described as people who get into other people's way merely for the sake of being paid to get out of it. When people got into your way on the pavement they were removed by the police, and last year the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) induced the House to pass a measure for the removal of persons who got in the way of others by the performance of music. Now whatever difference of opinion there might be as to the pleasure to be derived from musical performances in the streets, there could be none as to the character of persons who got in the way merely for the sake of being paid to get out of it. In the first instance the feeling of the Committee was in favour of giving costs only to the opponents of Bills; but upon further consideration they thought that the House would hardly be disposed to agree to a onesided measure, and that it would be fair to give costs in cases in which parties had opposed Bills upon what might be considered colourable and false grounds. The only case in which he could conceive a Committee would give costs would be when the proceedings were vexatious and colourable; but if any one came forward bond fide to defend his rights, of course he would not be made to pay costs. The wording of the clause was a matter of difficulty and delicacy, and he would be glad of any suggestions in Committee on that point; but what he intended was substantially to prevent unnecessary and vexatious proposals or oppositions.
  MR. CRAWFORDseconded the Motion.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2°."—(Mr. Scourfield.)
  MR. DENMANsaid, he had read the Bill carefully, and believed it would be a very valuable piece of legislation so far as its spirit and principle were concerned. No one could have attended these Committees as counsel, or sat upon them as a Member of the House, without feeling that there was a vast amount of unreasonable and unnecessary litigation. But the Bill as it stood was, he thought, a little too large in its terms, as it gave a power to throw costs upon any party if unsuccessful; but want of success was no proof either of vexatious or unreasonable proceedings. If the hon. Member would alter the words so as to give power to the Committee to award costs whenever the scheme or the opposition was "unreasonable or vexatious" the Bill would then really meet the case he supposed the hon. Member had in view. He should therefore support the principle of the Bill by voting for the second reading; but in Committee it would, he thought, be desirable to alter the terms so as to define more accurately what was meant.
  MR. PUGHsaid, that the Bill was an even-handed measure in this respect—that, as had been stated by his hon. Friend who introduced it, it dealt equal justice to both sides, and mulcted equally those who improperly opposed as well as those who improperly promoted railway projects. But he hoped that, in any legislation that might take place, care would be taken not to throw difficulties in the way of those who were engaged in introducing railways into those parts of the country that stood in great need of them. If they looked at a railway map they would observe that the heart of the country was covered with a network of railways, while other parts were still comparatively unprovided with them; although, as had been truly said, nearly £400,000,000 had been expended in rail-way construction. He would instance that part of the country with which he was most connected—Wales; also a great part of Devonshire, Cornwall, the West of Ireland, speaking generally, and the West of Scotland. There the railways are few and far between. It might be said there was a reason for this; that the districts to which he had alluded were less populous, less wealthy, and more distant from the great marts of commerce and manufactures. But if that were so, inasmuch as it was a matter of public policy, and of great importance, that every part of the country should be accessible by railways, so that the Empire might be con-

  567
  solidated, or coiled up, it would be wise not now at the eleventh hour to increase the difficulties of those who, by reason of their natural position, had already sufficient to contend with; but, on the other hand, it would be well to give them every assistance and encouragement on all occasions. He said this particularly with reference to that part of the country to which he belonged, in the welfare of which he was especially interested.
  MR. TORRENShoped that the principle of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Haverfordwest (Mr. Scourfield) would be favourably received by the House, and would be passed into law with any alterations that might be required. But, at the same time, he regretted that it did not go further and contemplate giving Committees power to award costs in all Private Bills. He would take that opportunity of giving one instance out of many of hardship inflicted on opponents by promoters of Private Bills other than Railway Bills. Last Session a Bill was introduced by the Belfast Waterworks Commissioners for the better supply of water to that town. This water was to be taken from the streams which supplied the inhabitants of Carrickfergus, which town he represented, with water for agriculture, manufacturing, and domestic purposes. The Bill was opposed by the inhabitants of Carrickfergus, and in order to raise the money necessary for the opposition to this a rate was levied on the inhabitants and a considerable expenditure was incurred. The Bill was withdrawn. But the outlay incurred led to no good; for again this Session the people of Belfast sought by Private Bill legislation to deprive Carrickfergus of its supply of water, and a similar expense would be necessary to oppose it again. This was only one instance of what was daily occurring during the Session, and was referred to to show that great hardship and injustice could be inflicted by promoters by introducing Bills of other kinds than Railway Bills. As the Bill under consideration related to costs of Private Bills, he hoped it would not be out of place to express surprise that those Members who had to deal with the subject did not take the further reduction of costs in Private Bill legislation into consideration. He held in his hand a printed list of charges in Private Bill matters under the Act of 1847, and to show how easy it would be to reduce expenditure on this account he would refer, among others, to the charge
  568
  for petitions of opponents. One petition was allowed for an agent, one for a solicitor, and three for counsel. Taking these five copies at 6d. per folio, the authorized charge for the five copies of a tolerably long petition would be about £4 16s. But if a petition of the same number of words were printed, twenty-five copies could be furnished for about a guinea. Printing is most advantageously used in the Court of Chancery, and ha3 greatly reduced expense. Affidavits and briefs and other documents in that Court are now printed. He trusted that those who had the authority to do so in this House would more fully introduce printing in Private Bill legislation. By so doing a very great saving would accrue to parties who are too often unwillingly dragged before Parliamentary Committees, and put to enormous expense.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the Bill was a very admirable and curious specimen of British legislation. Under its provisions costs might be given at the discretion of Committees in the case of Railway Bills and none others. But if that power were given to Committees on railways, why not give it to Committees sitting upon all Private Bills? If they granted the power in the case of railways, they could not deny that it was right to give it to a Committee inquiring with reference to Water Bills. He suggested this consideration to the Home Secretary, in order that they might not be laughed at out of doors on account of their peddling and inconsistent legislation. When the Bill came into Committee he would press upon his hon. Friend (Mr. Scourfield) the substitution of the words "every Private Bill" for the words "every Railway Bill."
  MR. RICHARD HODGSONsaid, he also was of opinion that the measure should be extended to all Private Bills; but he thought, at the same time, that the measure was too comprehensive, and that some limitation should be put on the power which it was proposed to give to Committees in that case. He could scarcely imagine that the promoters of a Bill would enter on an undertaking which was absolutely unfounded and vexatious; but if they should press a Bill which had been rejected in a preceding Session he would give the Committee, if they should be unanimous, the power of awarding costs. In the case of the opposition to a Bill he would invest the Committee with a similar power, if the opposition should be renewed in one House

  569
  after it had been unsuccessfully prosecuted in the other.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he did not think that question of costs had been carefully considered by any of the Committees. The Committee of 1863 had taken some evidence upon the subject; but on that evidence they had not thought fit to recommend any legislation, and they were, on the whole, adverse to the adoption of such a step. He did not think that any analogy could be drawn between the cases tried before the common law courts and those which were brought before Railway Committees. If a man failed in a common law court he must, in all probability, have been prosecuting an illegal claim. Besides, everybody knew or was presumed to know the laws of the land. That was a state of things which could hardly be said to prevail in the case of the promoters or the opposers of a Private Bill. Many of the projects for which the sanction of Parliament was demanded must at first have appeared more or less extravagant or illusory; but, as they became better known, and as the public requirements increased, they ultimately met with universal approval. The very earliest of all the great Railway Bills, the Liverpool and Manchester, was at first thrown out, and was only passed on a second application to Parliament. The London and Birmingham, and the Great Northern were also at first unsuccessful, and the Grand Junction from Birmingham to Liverpool and Manchester had to be brought several times before Parliament. In all these cases it would be manifestly unadvisable that these promoters should only have been able to make their second application for a Bill with the fear of costs before their eyes. It was also proposed by the measure that the opponent of a Bill should be subjected to the payment of costs if his opposition should be thought unfounded and vexatious; but he did not see why a landowner, for instance, should be liable to have costs thrown upon him if he unsuccessfully opposed a scheme which would interfere with his property. He thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthenshire (Mr. Pugh) had said some very reasonable things on the subject, He said we must take care not to throw unnecessary obstacles in the way of the progress and extension of railways in districts where they do not now exist, or to prevent the undertaking of works which were for the public benefit. Those Bills to which he (Mr. Milner Gibson) had re-
  570
  ferred, which had been thrown out at first, but which were carried by perseverance, had conferred great and unquestionable public advantages. After the expression of feeling on the part of the House, he did not think it would become him to oppose the second reading of the Bill; but, if the hon. Gentleman saw no objection, he would propose that, after the second reading, the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSwas of opinion that any words which it was deemed desirable to insert in the Bill might be adopted in Committee. The principal reason which, to his mind, showed the necessity of the Bill was that we were in a position in which Private Bills' Committees must either be strengthened or abandoned altogether. He thought they needed to be strengthened, and therefore he proposed that the power of giving costs should be vested in the Committees. He wished to avoid unnecessary delay, and the needless expenditure of the time of Parliament, and the money of capitalists. At present, a Committee was powerless to stop expenditure. If a Chairman expostulated with counsel on going into unnecessary detail, the reply was, that he was the best judge of his own case. If the promoters and opponents of a Bill knew that summary power was vested in the Committee to award costs, it would prevent many of the evils complained of, and great strength would be added to the Committee. He should give his cordial support to the Bill.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he was very sorry that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade should have thought it necessary to throw his personal and official weight into the scale against the Bill, for his speech was one against the Bill, although, in deference to the general opinion of the House, he had concluded his remarks by recommending that it should be sent to a Select Committee. It had been found by experience in all countries that it was expedient, in order to protect the time of courts and also the time and money of those who were obliged to vindicate their rights against others, to visit the unsuccessful party, under certain limitations, with the cost of the proceedings. His right hon. Friend, however, drew a distinction between what he called questions of law and matters of expediency, and seemed to think that it was quite proper that the unsuccessful litigant in our

  571
  law courts should be visited with costs, because everybody knew the law, while it would be quite wrong to impose costs when the point at issue was one of expediency, for of that nobody ought to be presumed to be a judge. Now, he entirely differed from the view taken by his right hon. Friend in that respect. A man was very often in entire ignorance of the law in many cases in which he had to pay costs, whereas Providence had given us all more or less the capability of arriving at some right notion upon questions of public expediency. There was, moreover, another fallacy in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, for he had spoken of courts of law as if they decided nothing but questions of law; whereas it was the application of the law to a new state of facts which very frequently constituted their great difficulty in arriving at a sound conclusion. Indeed, in nine cases out of ten the real controversy in our courts was as to matters of fact rather than of law, and he could not, therefore, understand the distinction which was sought to be drawn between proceedings taken before them, and those instituted before Parliamentary Committees. His right hon. Friend, he might add, had argued as if the Bill were entirely one sided, and as if the costs under its operation would always fall upon the companies by which schemes were promoted; but it should be borne in mind that if the prospect of having to pay costs was calculated to defer individuals in some cases from offering a vexatious opposition to a Bill, a similar prospect might also prevent powerful companies from improperly prosecuting private persons. Was it putting an imaginary case to ask if an individual did not often give up rights which he had successfully defended before a Parliamentary Committee rather than undergo the constant drain on his resources consequent upon being called upon to maintain them year after year? If the present Bill were passed, it would place the individual more on a level with a company, and thus substantial justice would, so far as lay in the power of the House, be done between the parties. The question at issue was one, he thought, which could be very well disposed of by a Committee of the Whole House, and he, therefore, hoped the Bill would not be referred to a Select Committee, to be again debated when it came back, but that his right hon. Friend would deem it to be his duty, as a great progressive Reformer, not to throw difficulties in
  572
  the way of a measure the object of which was to do equal justice between all Her Majesty's subjects, to save the time of tribunals which were already overburdened, and to prevent persons being unjustly exposed to great expense as the result of vexatious proceedings.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, that as he was a Member of the Committee appointed to consider this subject, he was prepared to avow his readiness to take his share of the responsibility of its recommendations. He had waited with anxiety to hear the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade, but he was astonished to hear several things which the right hon. Gentleman had uttered. It was impossible that any one who had ever sat upon one of these Committees, or who had attended as a spectator of their proceedings, could have failed to see the vices of the present system. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) said that the same measure was often brought forward three or four times in succession, and eventually succeeded; and he quoted that as showing that the present Bill was founded on a wrong principle. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the formation of the Manchester and Liverpool Railway, and other railways in that district, and to the Committees before which their merits were canvassed; but that was going very far back—to a time, indeed, when some Members of the present House were not born. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that at the time to which he referred, Committees were very differently constituted. At that time, the Member bringing in the Bill named the Committee. Any other Member could then move that "all who come shall have voices," which opened the Committee to the Whole House; and he (Lord Hotham) remembered that when the vote on the Preamble of one of the Bills to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was taken, between fifty and sixty Members voted on each side. That was a time when railways were in their infancy, and when no one knew anything about them; and therefore he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman could offer no better arguments than such as were based upon what was done thirty years ago, there did not seem to be much ground for objecting to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had also spoken of the elasticity of the present system, in allowing a Bill to be brought forward three or four

  573
  consecutive times. Now, he would give the House an instance of how that elasticity was used. He had been informed by a gentleman that he had had for two or three years following to come before a Committee to defend his property from the assaults of a certain railway company. After the Bill was once more rejected he was met in the lobby by one of the promoters of the Bill, who asked him what was the use of his opposing the Bill, and how long he thought he could stand against the seven millions of the company. That was an example of the elasticity of that system which the right hon. Gentleman thought justified parties in coming year after year before Parliament in prosecuting their schemes. The right hon. Gentleman also objected to giving power to a Committee to deal with questions of law. But what more important questions of law could be dealt with than those which came before Election Committees? Power was given to those Committees to vote that the opposition to the petition, or that the petition itself was frivolous and vexatious, and that not merely by an unanimous decision of the Committee such as the Bill contemplated, but by a mere majority of voices. The hon. Member who had charge of this Bill did not ask for so much as that, but that the decision of the Committee should be unanimous; so that he (Lord Hotham) thought that the objection of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to legal questions was sufficiently disposed of. The Bill had been brought forward to remedy a gene-ally admitted grievance, and he thought that, with the guarded provision contained in the Bill—namely, the unanimity of the Committee to throw costs on either party, the House ought not to throw any objection in the way of its passing. The professional knowledge of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Tiverton had enabled him to suggest an alteration in the wording of the Bill, which he (Lord Hotham) felt sure his hon. Friend having charge of the measure would gladly adopt, seeing that it only tended to carry out the object with which it had been introduced. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield suggested that the provisions of the measure should be applicable not only to Railway Bills but to all Private Bills. He (Lord Hotham), as at present advised, saw no reason why that should not be done; but that was a question for the Committee, and not for the House on the second reading of the Bill. He hoped the
  574
  House would read the Bill a second time, and when in Committee it would be competent for any hon. Member to move Amendments with reference to its details. The proposition as at present framed seemed exceedingly fair and reasonable; he, therefore, saw no need for any reference to a Select Committee, as had been proposed, and which would look rather like an excuse for shelving the Bill. At the same time, if the feeling of the House were in favour of such a reference he should not oppose any suggestion made with the object of securing for the subject the fullest consideration.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he did not object to the principle of the Bill, but thought its clauses required grave consideration. Proprietors of land ran sufficient risks already, without having the liability to pay costs superadded.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Question before the House was whether the Bill should be read a second time, and to that there did not seem to be any opposition. The House would then have to consider whether the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee, and the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would, after the second reading was passed, have an opportunity of stating whether he consented to that course or not. It was impossible to deny that there might be cases, other than those of Railway Bills, where Committees might usefully award costs; then, as the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had said, why limit that power to Railway Bills? Now, that was a question that might be better considered in a Select Committee than in a Committee of the Whole House. There were other questions also to be considered, and he was struck with the observation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton that there were cases where the original promotion of or opposition to a Bill might be perfectly bond fide, but where the proceedings might be unnecessarily prolonged by the examination of witness after witness. In such cases if the power of giving costs were sanctioned, it ought to be a power the exercise of which was proportioned to the conduct of the parties; whereas, according to the present proposal, the Committee were either to give the entire costs or none at all. Questions such as these might be advantageously considered by a Select Committee, which was not suggested in order to shelve the Bill. It

  575
  would not be necessary for the Committee to take any evidence, and their Report, therefore, might be agreed upon in a very few days. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Hotham) had referred to Election Committees; but the cases were very rare indeed, probably not more than one in 100 or 200, where Election Committees decided that a petition was frivolous or vexatious, and that costs ought consequently to be given. It deserved consideration whether Committees, under the proposed system, ought to be pledged to any form of words specified in an Act of Parliament, or whether, if upon due consideration of the facts, they arrived at a conclusion that the whole or a portion of the costs should be borne by the promoters or opponents, they should make a Special Report to the House of the grounds for their decision. These and other points, he believed, could best be considered in Committee, as his right hon. Friend (Mr. Milner Gibson) had suggested.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2°.
  Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he wished to be guided in this matter by the feeling of the House. As to the proposed enlargement of the powers of the Committee, he could only say that he for one had no objection to it; but in framing his Bill he had been guided by a desire only to ask for that which would be likely to receive the assent of the House, and, moreover, by the feeling that as the Order of Reference to the Select Committee was confined to Railway Bills, he might seem to have travelled out of the record had he suggested any wider power of awarding costs. He did not think the measure could be charged with anything like a tendency to check railway enterprise; but railway and all other enterprises ought to be conducted in accordance with principles of justice. He trusted the Select Committee to whom the Bill was to be referred would net take evidence, because in that event the passing of the Bill must be indefinitely postponed. And in any case, as the House would reserve to itself the privilege of debating the Bill anew when it returned from the Select Committee, all that could be gained by the reference was a slight addition of authority. He thanked his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) for the suggestion which he had made, assured him it should have his best consideration, and returned
  576
  his acknowledgments to the House for the favourable consideration which they had so far extended to the measure.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee.
  And on February 24, Select Committee nominated as follows:—
  Mr. SCOURFIELD, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Lord HOTHAM, Colonel WILSON PATTEN, Mr. LOWE, Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. DENMAN, Mr. PUGH, Mr. CAIRD, and Mr. ARTHUR MILLS:—Five to be the quorum.

FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR EVIDENCE AND PRACTICE BILL— [BILL 21.]

  SECOND READING.
  MR. DENMAN, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that it consisted of two parts, and that the object of the first part, contained in clause 2, was the same as that of the Bill which he introduced on the subject in 1860. That Bill passed through that House, and had received general approval, having been supported by the present Lord Chancellor, then one of the Law Officers in this House, and by Lords Brougham, Campbell, and Chelmsford in the House of Lords; but had been dropped on its return to that House, in consequence of an alteration which had been introduced in its progress through the other House, which seemed inconsistent with its spirit. That was a proviso that it should be discretionary with the judge in each particular case whether to allow or disallow the right to sum up the evidence. The object of this part of the Bill was to assimilate the practice in criminal cases to that which prevailed in civil cases; and to allow counsel, whether for the prosecution or the defence, to sum up the evidence. Another provision of the Bill had reference to the discrediting of witnesses by the party producing them. The clause would not allow a party to discredit his own witness by general evidence of bad character; but enable him, under certain circumstances, to offer evidence to prove that he has made at other times a statement inconsistent with his present testimony. Proof might also be given of contradictory statements of adverse witnesses under the same circumstances which render such statements admissible in civil cases. There was also a provision as to cross-examination with reference to a previous statement made in writing or reduced to writing, without requiring such writing in the first instance to be shown to him. He saw no reason why a difference should

  577
  exist between civil and criminal cases in that respect. The next provision of the Bill was one making a certificate of a conviction for felony or misdemeanor, evidence of the fact that a witness had been so convicted, without requiring the formal and expensive proof now required in criminal cases. He proposed that it should no longer be necessary to call the attesting witnesses to prove the validity of any instrument to the validity of which attestation is not requisite. He saw no reason why the criminal law should not be assimilated to the law in civil proceedings in this respect. He also proposed to permit a disputed writing to be compared by a witness or by the jury with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine. In cases of forgery it was of the utmost importance not only that the opinions of experts should be had as to the character of the writing, but that witnesses and the jury should be allowed to see and compare the documents. He once happened to be arbitrator in a case in which he had to decide whether a certain handwriting was or was not a forgery. It was said to be the handwriting of a deceased bishop. It related to the receipt of a sum of £2,000 said to have been handed to him in his lifetime. To test the genuineness of the alleged receipt, twenty-two letters written by the bishop were put into his hand, and experts gave an opinion that the handwriting was genuine. But these letters had been in the possession of the party who got up the receipt, and he had an opportunity of copying them. On the other side, 111 genuine letters were put in, and the result of a careful comparison was to satisfy him beyond all possibility of doubt, that the disputed document was not genuine. The very exactness of the resemblance of each word in the disputed document to the same word in some one or other of the twenty - two genuine documents which had been in the defendant's possession, and the total absence of that sort of resemblance in the 111 to which he had had no access, was next to conclusive. Yet, had a prosecution for forgery been instituted, as the law now stood, no such comparison could have been made. In a case tried before Baron Channell at the last Winter Assizes, though evidence of a precisely similar character would have been in the last degree important in determining whether particular checks were or were not forgeries, the learned Judge was obliged to direct that
  578
  such light as this kind of evidence might throw upon the case could not be received. He had not been aware when framing the Bill, that these very clauses were at the present moment law in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Column O'Loghlen) had drawn his attention to the 19 AMP; 20 Vict. c. 102, s. 25–30, which contained these identical provisions, and the Report of the English and Irish Law and Chancery Commission of 1863 actually recommended that in these very respects the law of England should be assimilated to that of the sister country. The only hesitation which he felt in bringing forward the Bill in its present shape was, that the proposition as to summing up the evidence was virtually embodied in the measure brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk. On carefully reading over both the Bills, however, he had arrived at the conclusion that it was better to leave that clause in the present Bill, inasmuch as he observed that his hon. and learned Friend had varied the language considerably; and with a view to the success of the measure he thought it better to adhere to the very words in which this House and the House of Lords, with the exception of the proviso before alluded to, had passed the same measure in 1860. As to the rest of the Bill it had nothing in common with that of his hon. and learned Friend. The hon. and learned Member explained that the wording of the clauses made them only applicable to cases of felony and misdemeanor, but that he thought it convenient to adopt the provision of 19 AMP; 20 Vict. c. 102, s. 98, which extended the evidence clauses of this Bill to all courts and all cases, and he would so alter the wording in Committee as to carry out that view. He concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2°.—(Mr. Denman.)
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, this Bill afforded an admirable specimen of English legislation. A rule had been established in civil cases which his hon. and learned Friend desired to extend to criminal cases; but instead of saying, in so many words, that all the rules of evidence now applicable in civil cases should in future be applicable to criminal cases, he felt it necessary to repeat every one of the clauses, thereby incumbering the statute-book with an unnecessary mass of verbiage. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secre-

  579
  tary of State, whether the plan he had suggested was not the shortest, the most effective, and certainly the most scientific way of effecting the alteration.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, if present, would have given his assent to the second reading of the Bill, and on the part of the Government he (Sir George Grey) now gave that assent. He thought it would prove a very useful measure. With the exception of one clause, which was different in its wording, he thought the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) might be acted upon by simply declaring that the enumerated sections of the Common Law Procedure Act should apply to criminal cases as well.
  MR. LOWEsaid, it struck him that the suggestion, though very plausible, could not safely be acted upon. One of the results would be that, as in civil suits, all admissions given by the prisoner under any circumstances would be admissible against him.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2°.
  On Question, "That this Bill be committed,"
  MR. DENMANsaid, that the suggestion that had been thrown out by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had occurred to himself, but he had refrained from taking that course, fearing he should be met with the objection that it was a highly inconvenient mode of legislation to pass an Act of Parliament referring to another Act. In a court, or elsewhere, the other Act might be sent for, when it might be found not to contain what was wanted, and become necessary to refer back to another Act. The most convenient plan was to put down in black and white the alteration that it was intended to make, copying, if desirable, the clauses from the existing Acts.
  Motion agreed to; Bill committed for Friday.

  AFFIRMATIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. EDWARD CRAUFURD, Bill to allow Affirmations or Declarations to be made instead of Oaths in all Civil and Criminal Proceedings in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. EDWARD CRAURFORD and Mr. DUNLOP.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.