On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    scientious scruples , be examined by the judge , and if the latter was of opinion that his scruples were really conscientious , his evidence might be received not on oath . He thought that that was the beet way of getting out of the difficrUty . He knew that some persons were in favour of abolishing the oath altogether . But he should be very loth to give up the security of the additional obligation , to tell the truth which he believed the fact of their having taken an oath , imposed on the minds of many witnesses . I ? there was one thing more than another which confirmed him in that feeling it was an observation which he remembered to have once heard from the late Lord Melbourne . He said that 1 the opinion which persons entertained as to the force of an oath in binding the conscience was shown by the fact that there never was a secret society without an oath . '"

    Having detailed the recommendations with respect to the proof of handwriting , and the reception of insufficiently stamped documents , which he adopted , liord Cranworth referred to several others to which he could not accede , and which therefore he did not intend to propose . He then mentioned that the court which , had adjudicated upon a case would have the power of issuing an injunction to prevent a repetition of the injury , hut he did dot propose to give the common-law courts the power of issuing decrees for specific performance . The ' commissioners recommended greater facilities with respect to editable defences . He proposed also that equitable defences should be pleaded in bar to the action . After some further explanations , he laid a bill upon

    the table , which , after the second reading , he proposed to refer to a select committee , the committee to meet immediately after the return of the Lord Chief Justice from circuit . . I * ord Campbell pointed out several details in the bill which would require great consideration , but gave it a general approval . He expressed his satisfaction that it was not proposed to take away the trial by jury , though he admitted there were cases in which a single judge would be sufficient . He approved , however , of all the improvements proposed to be introduced into the mode of trial by jury , and particularly of the discretion given to the judge incases where witnesses had conscientious objections to the taking of an oath .

    Lord Brougham described his satisfaction at the measure , and mentioned that , without any concert , but solely from a consideration of principles , the commissioners and himself had arrived at the same conclusions . The bill was a step in the right direction , which , before their lordships had done , he hoped would be converted into a stride . The bill was then read the first time .

    CONVENTUAL ESTABLISHMENTSMr . Thomas Chambers has earned a sort of distinction in the House of Commons by making an annual motion relating to conventual and monastic establishments . This week he has beaten the Government , and carried a resolution to appoint a select committee to inquire into the number and rate of increase of conventual and monastic institutions in the United Kingdom , and the relation in which they stood to existing law ; and to consider whether any , and , if any , what further legislation was required on the-subject . This was not accomplished without a Ionpc debate and a division . Mr . Chambers main .

    tamed that conventual and monastic establishments in England and Ireland have increased 400 per cent , since 1843 ; that monastic institutions are contrary to law , and convents have no relation to law ; that something should be done with respect to the disposal of property by women entering a nunnery ; and that there is reason to believe persons are now confined against their will . He made out a very weak case , so much so that some members who supported bis motion repudiated his arguments and the antagonistic spirit he displayed , and based their assent on the convenience of getting rid of an importunate yearly motion by granting inquiry . Mr . Chambers

    was sustained by Mr . Napibh , -Lord Claude Hamilton , Mr . Waxpole , Mr . Cowan , Mr . Nhjwdeqate , and Mr . Palk . On the other side , were Mr . John Ball , Mr . Faqan , Mr . Roche , Mr . J . G . Philhmobe , Mr . Magcire , Mr . F . Russell , Mr . Miall , Lord John Russell , and Mr . J . D . Fitzgerald . These gentlemen contended that the stories about persons being confined in nunneries were untrue ; that it is an insult to suppose Roman Catholic gentlemen would submit to have their daughters ill-used in convents ; and that it was remarkable that the parties so anxious for tho welfare of the nuns should be Protestants , and that no complaints were made by tlie ltonian Cfttliolic parents of England . Mr . J . G .

    private trade was not maintained on a scale sufficient to lay oat this large sum in machinery . But was it to be supposed that because the Government bought that machinery , it would be burdened with a large staff of workmen ? On the contrary , the peculiarity of _ a change from hand-labour to machinery was this—that ~ instead of having 90 per cent , skilled labour and 10 per cent , unskilled labour , they would require 10 per cent , of skilled labour and 90 per cent , of unskilled labour . " Finally it was . agreed that the vote should be diminished by 100 , 000 / ., and a committee appointed to investigate the question at once , sitting continuously until the inquiry is completed .

    LAW RHFORM . Ministers hare found time , amid the bustle of war preparations , for carrying on law reform . On Monday the Lord Chancellor called the attention of the Souse to the second report of the Common-Law Commissioners . The first report of the commissioners related to the subject of special pleading , and the amendments introduced into the law , in consequence of that report , had proved most beneficial . In the second report , the commissioners considered the question wliat amendments could be made on the trial of matters in dispute . One of their first recommendations was , that whenever both parties

    wished to have the matter tried by a judge without a jury , it should be competent for them to have it so decided . He could not quite agree to this recommendation unmodified , for several reasons , which he detailed ; and therefore he proposed that whenever both parties vished the matter to be tried by a judge , without a jury , it should be with this limitation—if the judge should think fit , or if the case came within certain general rules , to be framed by the judges . This would be a safe step , and if experience proved the system to work well * it might then be easily extended . The commissioners next recommended that cases involving matters of account

    should at once be sent to a referee without coming to the court . This he approved . A number of improvements were also recommended in the trial by juryitself , " yearly all of which he accepted . At present a distinction was made between common and special jurors ; but it . was proposed , and he concurred , that an alteration should be made by raising the qualification , and by providing that there should be only one panel for both . Some alterations were recommended ; in the mode of trial , by both parties having the right of addressing the court after having called their -witnesses . These he approved , and should adopt . Some technical alterations , which he

    approved ., were also recommended , which he need not detail ; but there was one he might mention . The rule of calling attesting witnesses to prove documents would be abolished except in certain cases . He did not propose to interfere with the rule which required unanimity in the jury ; but if the jury could not agree within a given time , say twelve hours , then they would be discharged ^ the judge having in the mean time the power of ordering reasonable refreshments . In the case of a jury not agreeing and leing discharged there would be a new trial . These were the principal recommendations relative to the jury .

    " Another recommendation of the commissioners with reference to the conduct of the trial was , he thought , marked by great good sense . At present all evidence must be given upon oath , except by Quakers , Moravians , and Separatists , in favour of whose religious scruples Parliament had from time to time passed acts of Parliament enabling them to give their evidence on affirmation instead of oath . Of-course the jury mi g ht , if they thought fit , detract from the weight of their evidence because it was not given on oath ; but" both

    they and the court were bound to receive and listen to it . It happened , however , occasionally that persons not included in the classes exempted by act of Parliament , on presenting themselves as witnesses , refused to be sworn on the ground of religious scruples . Such a case once happened to himself at York , and he never felt himself placed in a more unpleasant position . Upon the Bible being presented to , apparently a most respectable man who appeared as a witness , he said that he had a religious scruple , ao 4 could not take an oath . He vras asked whether he was a member of one of

    tho classes whom Parliament had exempted from the obligation to take an oath . He replied in the negative , but said that he had a most decided conscientious objection to take an oath , and h « produced some passages of Scripture , such as c swear not at all , ' and others in support or his view . Lord Oranworth told him that he was bound to say that it he was not one of the classes named , he had no alternative but to commit him in caso he declined to take the oath . Tlie man replied that , whatever might be the consequences , he could not take the oath . It was late in the day when ho wan called , and it was agreed that it should stand over till next morning , in order to reconsider his determination . In the mortiing n « said , ' I have talked with some one on whom I can rely , and I think I can take tho oatli if it means so and so . ' Ho ^ Lor ^ CranwortlQ told him that ho saw no objection to tho interpretation which he put upon it ; tho oath w&s taken ; tho cause proceeded , and tho difficulty ami embarrassment which would otherwise have arisen was avoided .

    cial results could be obtained for the sum of 150 , 0007 . —on which Mr . Anderson was certainly a safe , authority—he was sure the House would agree with him that Lord Raglan was right in considering this measure , as the noble and gallant Master of the Ordnance had authorised him to state , of the last importance to the public service . Under these cirenmstaneesy lief hoped the House would carry this vote . He had already-said that , in his opinion , the results of the proposed change would not be such as the gunmakers appeared to anticipate . The gun trade in this country was now in a low state ; but the gun trade in , America was in a flourishing . and advancing condition , . Unless , therefore , our gun manufacture irak improved , and a good system of machinery

    introduced , the foreign orders that now came to this country would go to America , and the trade thus be lost to us . He had an account of the number of muskets exported from the United Kingdom in 1951 and 1853 . In 1851 the number exportedjsras 247 , 236 V in 1853 It fell to 238 , 767 . But the export of piatohi stood thus : —in 1851 , 5 , 333 : and in 1853 , 22 , 235 . So that while the exports of muskets had fallen , that of pistols had more than trebled . Why ? Because Colonel Colt had ; introduced into this country the perfect machinery in use in the United States , by means of which he had been enabled to produce pistols at a cheap rate , and he had created a trade from which the country derived great benefit . He believed tlat ihe same benefits would res-alt to

    ihfigaxanakera from toe factory , which the Government in-, tended to . establish . Ifc , wonla lead them to use a more eftb ^ tive system of machinery , incLbv this means , instead of injuring , at . wo | ild T ^ iie ^ tfiiem .. He trusted that what he h ^ now i ^ d would awaken ; the gun -trade to the wisdom of 'the cotra © whictf the (^ verninent , were pursuing : at all ^ ventaj he was sure the House would never consent tnat the interests cf the country should be sacrificed to the interests '• ofa small number ; of private individuals . " ' WherttheTbirwate jput there tirose fierce debate . Mr . Muirrz , in the interest of tHe Birmingham gun-TOttkfcra , led tlie assailants of the Government . He averred , that i % e Oirdriance department were alone ! re * pon 8 l blefor theSel ^ fi that private manufacturers cbiud fitrnish arms more cheaply than Government ;

    ahE said the reaisori why'tne manufacturers could not work more cheaply than they did was because the orders yiete nofrqongecutiye .. ; - < . ; Mr . Muntei w » supported by Mr . Newdegate andr | fir ^; 3 GBJ «« B . ^^ r ^^ aitMcm ^ B'' came to their assistance , ° stoutly : C 0 ntending that . Governments dDjgb ^ n ^ t ^^^ al ^ uiMsttiTCrs . This drew out Mr . Gi , AbsxoNB , who set forth tlie same arguments as ^ hose used by Mr . Mdrjflell , only more lucidly put . Mr ~ Gladstone admtted 'HbatjTrvndjfocta the case was agipnst the Gpyernment being the manufacturer ; bat there were certain icasesiui which , the Government ought to tie a jpanufactnrer , and in which nobody denied that it ought to

    X > e amanatacturer . la one article or ammunition alone , of whi ^ it j ^ wafrj , he ; in ^^ factnrer , the country had been saved not lesa than half ; a million by its being so . Nobody denied ; lhat the Government should continue that manufacture . Again , nobody , denied that , ! the Government should be the maaufadprer ofaniintinitionjgenerally . It was usually the manufacturer of ; it » ammunition . ' Upon what did that disiittction ^ epend ? iWhj ,: ttpQn the particularities and the specialties of each ; case ,:- Each question of the kind was not to be flettled | by general cficta about . thepropriety of the Government being a manufacturer , but by a careful examination of the particulars and merits of the case . What was the case here ? The cost of our musket . was 34 , and the responsible

    department Assured the Souse that our muskets could be manufactured for 30 s . But economy was not the only question . Rapidity of manufacture must be taken into the account . . What said the Ordnance department ? Why , that board ordered a tender to be issued for the supj % of 2000 carbines , of an improved plan , on the 11 th of March last , and not a single one of them had yet been delivered into store . In this case the committee were discussing the finest instrument that could be made , and which required in its manufacture the most rigid and minute precision . So great indeed was that precision that . it was impossible to attain to it without having recourse to machinery . What was the nature of this case ? It was whether they would

    continue to have the muskets used by her Majesty ' s forces made by the old , inferior , and obsolete process of hand labour , or whether they would apply to that description of work that which they had applied to every other , and would bring to bear upon it the force and the economy of machinery . It was not a question of the monopolising spirit of the eunmakers , nor was it a question of the exorbitant profits realised by them . It was a question of inferior processes and superior processes . It . was a question between hand labour and machinery . He could scarcely believe that in the manufacture of small arms it was possible to effect a saving to the country of 800 , 0007 . or 900 , 0002 . ; but it was so . The noble lord asked if the Government was now making provision for future wars ? No ; but they were making provision for a war which was now gathering around us . He asked most properly , when the faotcry would be in operation ? It would be m operation within twelve months , and the Government looked to

    obtaining from it in the course of next year a full supply of arms . He wanted to know who coula secure equality and continuance with respect to contracts in the matter of arms . He wanted to know of that House , whose duty it was to study economy , whether they would enable the private trade to fulfil their contracts ? They had to complete a war supply of arms in time of peace . -They must have the power of sudden expansion and speedy manufacture on an emergency , and that was the matter involved in this proposition . They wanted the power of expansion for producing with absolute certainty a large amount of arms in a short time . They had gone on with the private trade " pottering" at this work for half a century—Q , oh , oh" and" hear , hear , hear" ) —and the result was that they invited tho tra < Jo to send in 2000 carbines a twelvemonth ago last March , and they had nojt got one of those carbines yot delivered in the stores . ^ Tow , what woe tho case with , regard to machinery ? The

    That it was so avoided was , however , only matter of accident . The prosent state of tho law wns evidently oxcoedingly faulty ; it forbade a man ' s evidence to ho received ; ilthough he was a man with so strict a sense of duty nndwilh ao strongly conscientious u feeling that ho would rather m > to prison than say a single word tliat would set , him fret ; it ' it was against his convictions . Wiiat was proposed b y t hit * bill was That any person might , on stating tlmt lie had

    eon-Phillimouu said he could not consent to recruit the Church of England by adopting this motion . Mr . Miali , suid , tia he would resist an inquiry into his own faith , even if he were convinced it w ould bo advantageous , so ho would resist inquiry into another faith , routing Ins argument on the ground of religious liberty . . Lord John Ri / sskjli > put the case forcibly . Kithcr the inquiry wns intended to discover what was already known—the number of these institutions , and their relations to the law—and then it would be superfluous ; or it was intended to inquire into the unfounded unsupported accusation that the convents were prisons , and then it is an insult . " And now , Sir , " ho continued , " it there is no reason for

    Untitled Article

    196 THE LEADER . .. [ Saturday ,

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), March 4, 1854, page 196, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2028/page/4/