Lords Sitting of 7 March 1833

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord SIDMOUTH, from the University of Oxford; by the Earl of WICKLOW, from Buckerell; by the Marquess of WESTMITNSTER from Glasgow; by Lord SUFFIELD, from Bow and St. Pancras; by Lord BYRON, from Christ Church; by the Bishop of Lincoln, from Gainsborough; by the Earl of RODEN, from several Parishes in Dublin; and by the Earl of CAWDOR, from Cawdor,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath—By the Marquess of WESTMINSTER, from Dissenters at Thrapston, for the Repeal of all the Laws relative to the Observance of the sabbath—By Lord TEVNHAM, from Wakefield, in favour of the Factories Bill; and from Killeconigan, and other Places in Ireland, against the Coercive Bill By Lord, KING, from St.
332
Mary's, Newington; by Lord DACRE, from Newport and Dunlop; by the Earl of CAWDOR, from Auchtergaven; and by Lord LILFORD, from Waldegraven, Wold Weldon, Scaldwell, and Cranford, Northamptonshire,—for the Abolition of Slaver.—By Lord KING, from St. Mary's, Newington, for the Repeal of the House and Window Tax.—By Lord DACRB, from Thurso, for the Abolition of Church Patronage.

JURIES (IRELAND).
The Earl of Wicklow: My Lords, perceiving the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place, I beg leave to put a question upon a subject which has created a great deal of alarm in Ireland. I allude, my Lords, to a bill brought up from the other House of Parliament last Session, called the Irish Jury Bill. That Bill was considered to be a measure of so much importance in the administration of justice in that country that it was considered advisable to refer it to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I had the honour of being on that Committee, and it was suggested, when the Bill was under consideration, that it would be very desirable to have the opinion of the Judges upon some of the points of it. The noble Viscount undertook to refer to the Judges for their opinion; and what I wish to know is, whether, as yet, he has received the decision of those Judges; and if he has, whether his Majesty's Ministers intend to bring that Bill, or a Bill with similar provisions, before Parliament in the course of the present Session?
Viscount Melbourne: My Lords, in answer to the question just put to me by the noble Earl, I beg to state, that it is the intention of his Majesty's Government, and that without delay, to bring forward a measure to regulate the Juries in Ireland. I cannot, however, undertake to say, that the Bill will be precisely the same as the Bill introduced during the last Session of Parliament. With respect to the other topic introduced by the noble Earl, I can state, that the Judges were consulted upon the subject, and their opinion has been given. They approve of some parts of the Bill, but they have suggested alterations in other parts of it.

THE RECTOR OF PORLOCK.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellssaid, seeing a noble Baron (Lord King) in his place, he begged to introduce very briefly to his notice, the subject which, on a former night, had been brought forward by that noble Lord, in which he had accused a reverend gentleman (the reverend Mr.

333
Clarke), holding a benefice in a parish in his (the Bishop of Bath and Wells's) diocese, of attempting to take tithe of fish caught on the coast. Now, he had since that made inquiries into the charge, and had received most satisfactory answers, completely exculpating that reverend gentleman. Among the letters which he had received from various individuals, all of whom spoke in the highest terms of praise of him, was one from Sir Thomas Acland. That reverend gentleman's conduct was represented as being most exemplary, and ever since his residence in the parish had done all that lay in his power to promote the advantage of his parishioners. He had never proceeded to act in the mannerstated; and he (the Bishop of Bath and Wells) hoped the noble Lord would do justice to the feelings of an individual whom he had calumniated, and express his sorrow for it. As the Bishop of the diocese, he thought himself bound to make these circumstances known, and he had communicated the contents of the letters to the noble Lord.
Lord Kingacknowledged the courtesy of the right reverend Prelate in showing him the correspondence alluded to; nevertheless, he (Lord King) was at a loss to discover what part of the statement that he had made had been contradicted by it. He had said, that the tithe-proctor had been burnt in effigy; and was not that the fact? One of the letters, as he recollected, from a neighbouring gentleman, stated, "that the talk about the tithe of fish, had arisen from a casual conversation between the reverend Mr. Clarke and another clergyman, in which Mr. Clarke said, that he was entitled to it." He had recently had an application for some ground in the parish of which that gentleman was rector, for the purpose of building a large dissenting chapel; and he was informed that half of Mr. Clarke's congregation would leave him if there was a large chapel, the present dissenting chapel being a small one. It had also been stated, that, since the reverend gentleman had acted as he had, the choir had refused to sing in the Church.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellssaid, he was satisfied with what had fallen from the noble Baron, as it fully exhibited the grounds upon which this respectable clergyman had been attacked. He put it to their Lordships, whether they did not all go away with the impression, after hearing the noble Lord and his petition, that the
334
tithe upon fish had been formally claimed of the whole body of parishioners? He was very well satisfied to leave the noble Lord and the cases in the situation in which both now stood.
Lord Wynfordsaid, he did understand that the noble Lord had stated that the reverend Gentleman had demanded tithes on fish. If there was a custom for the tithe, why then, as the noble and learned Lord had stated the other night, the clergyman was entitled to it; but it turned out that no such tithe had been demanded. The noble Lord opposite was therefore inaccurate in what he had stated.
Lord Kingobserved, that what he did say was, that the tithe-proctor had been burnt in effigy, and that it was the petitioners who complained of the tithe. He had certainly described the parish as being in a state of great alarm upon the subject, and he was warranted, from the petition, in so describing it.

LAW REFORM BILL.
The Lord Chancellorrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill, to which he should have to solicit the more particular attention of their Lordships in its future stages. At present, it was only his intention to state the general character of the measure, and to move the first reading. The matters to which it applied were of the greatest importance to all classes in the country. Its principal object was, to carry into effect and make law a variety of recommendations, which had proceeded from a body known as the Law Commissioners—that very useful body which had been appointed and sanctioned in its labours by a commission from the Crown, in pursuance of humble addresses from that and the other House of Parliament, with authority to inquire into the state of the Common Law, with a view to its amendment in certain respects, where the interests and wants of the country might require it. The result of the labours of that commission was before the House, and this Bill had for its principal object the carrying of the recommendations into effect. The first point to which it would be directed was that of pleading, A provision would be made, investing the Judges with a power to make regulations with a view to the abridgment of unnecessary forms in the practice in special pleading. The next provision related to one of the most important subjects which had come under the examination of the Com-

335
missioners—namely, the producing statutory limitations in a variety of actions. The defects of the old statutes of limitation were well known, the limitation extending to very long, and, in some instances, to uncertain periods. These defects would be remedied by the Bill which he had the honour to submit to their Lordships, and particularly those which attached to claims upon bonds, which were to be made to expire at the end of ten 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 the parties for whom they became answerable; the principal debtors were often left for forty or fifty, or even for seventy years without being called to account, though they might, during that period, have been in a state of perfect solvency. The consequence 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 in 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 those facts upon record in such a manner as to take the opinion of the Court upon them, and receive its judgment, in cases where 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 improvement proposed to be introduced by it that he thought it right now to mention. One of those provisions was—and he considered it a very great improvement indeed—to enable Juries to find a verdict for the interest, as well as for the principal, provided that a demand had been made for such interest previous to the taking of the action; and it further provided, that the interest found by the Jury, if they should so think fit to find, under the direction of the learned Judge presiding, should begin from the time of the demand. In cases of this kind, at present, where a security did not expressly, or upon the face of it, show
336
that 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 proceedings by a reference to arbitration. Their Lordships were aware, that, as the law at present stood, a reference to arbitration was an 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 witnesses upon oath, and of deciding upon all the facts of the case. There was, however, no compulsory clause for arbitration 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 Tenterden. That compulsory clause was omitted from the present Bill, as were also the concomitant clauses, 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, where one party proceeding against another, full time had been given to bring forward the facts of the case as ordered. There was another provision for facilitating the proving of deeds and other documents, whether written or printed; and it provided that, in cases where such documents had been proved already, it would not be necessary to bring down witnesses for the purpose; thus doing away with a great deal of the expense of trying actions under the existing system. There was another 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 proceedings. This last provision, their Lordships would perceive, was a most important step towards the establishment of local and cheap jurisdictions through out the country; but if he thought that this provision of the Bill at all anticipated or rendered supererogatory that more effective and general arrangement for the establishment of such local jurisdictions throughout the country which he (the Lord Chan-

337
cellor) 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 present 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 deceived, 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 throughout 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.
Bill read a first time.