Goode v. Winkles (Trial by | Williams v. Williams (F C)
jury) July 10
Richardson v. Stones (MD)
Smith v. Owen (MD)

Singleton v. Selwyn (Cause) Turnbull v. Walker (F C) Muggeridge v. Bell (F C) Wiltshire v. Marshall (Cause)

Hensley v. Wills (M D) Sturges v. Sturges (M D) Turner v. Elkins (Sp C)

1865.

Trinder v. Trinder (M D)
Cropton v. Smith (F C)
Daw v. Eley (M D)
Briscoe v. Carpenter (M D).

Emperial Parliament.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-Thursday, June 15. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe presented a petition against the Courts of Justice Site Bill from a lady who owned seventeen houses in New Boswell-court, Lincoln's-inn. This lady derived her only means of living from the rents of those houses, and through the frequent notices which had been served upon her, in reference to the proposed scheme for building the new courts of justice, she had lost the chief portion of her rents since the beginning of the year 1860. Although he was not exactly aware of what could be done for the lady's relief, he thought her case worthy of some consideration, when the question of compensating the owners of the property taken under the bill arose.

Lord Chelmsford had great doubts whether there was any legal mode of compensating the lady when the bill passed. The Lord Chancellor said the evil arising from notices of this description had attained such proportions, that some general legislative enactment should be brought in to meet it.

COMMON-LAW COURTS (FEES) BILL.

On the motion of the Lord Chancellor, the Commons' amendment to the Lords' amendments on this bill was considered, and agreed to.

PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT BILL.

This bill passed through committee.

LAND DEBENTURES BILL.

On the motion of the Earl of Cork, this bill was referred to the select committee before which the Mortgage Debentures

Bill was to be inquired into.

MORTGAGE DEBENTURES BILL.

On the motion of the Earl of Malmesbury, this bill was referred to a select committee, consisting of the Lord Chan

cellor, the Duke of Marlborough, the Marquis of Salisbury, the Marquis of Bath, the Earl of Malmesbury, Viscount Hutchinson, Lord Boyle, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Lord Cranworth, Lord St. Leonards, and Lord Chelmsford. The noble earl gave notice that he should move the addition of the names of Earl Grey, Lord Redesdale, and another, whose name we did not catch.

The Land Debentures Bill was read a second time, and or dered to be referred to the same select committee. Monday, June 19.

The royal assent was given, by commission, to the following bills:-Commissioners of Supply (Scotland); District Church Tithes, Middlesex (No. 2); Lancaster Court of Chancery; Married Women's Property (Ireland); Pilotage Orders Confirmation; Common Law Courts (Fees); Local Government Supplemental (No. 3); Dogs Regulation (Ireland); Building; Militia Ballots Suspension; Militia Pay, and about Courts of Justice Concentration (Site); Courts of Justice fifty private bills.

THE STATUTE LAW.

The Lord Chancellor presented a bill for completing the revision of the Statute Law and expurgation of the Statute Book. The noble Lord said that the statutes of the realm were at present in forty-four quarto volumes. The bills presented by him on former occasions, and which had passed into a law, carried the revision and expurgation down to the reign of James II inclusive, and the bill which he had now the honour to introduce completed the entire work of revision. He was happy to say, that if this bill passed into a law the new edition of the whole of the living statutes which would follow would probably be comprised in ten volumes only, of the same average size as at present. This, however, was by no means the end of the work. The next step would be to arrange the Statute Law in the form of a digest, under the most appropriate heads, forming a complete analytical ar rangement, and then to revise and expurgate the unwieldy and still increasing mass of the decided cases, reducing them

The Chancellor of the Exchequer felt the force of what had been said, and thought it would be very desirable that they should have a consolidation of the Stamp Acts.

Sir C. O'Loghlen directed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to the fact, that ships might be sold, assigned, or mortgaged, without making any return to the revenue by means of stamps, and the law even provided an admirable and cheap machinery for doing so. It was for the right hon. gentleman to consider whether the stamp duty should not be extended to the transfer of ships.

Mr. Scully complained that in Ireland, in transactions with regard to land, persons had to pay double stamp duty, as compared with the duty in England. In England they had to pay only a 10s. duty; in Ireland they had to pay an ad valorem duty besides. That double duty seriously interfered with the transfer of land in Ireland.

Mr. Hadfield said, that with regard to settlements, a gentleman had written to him stating that, in addition to the 58. duty on every 1007., he had also to pay 17. 15s. for the deed.

The Attorney-General said, if anybody wished to have the decision of the commissioners with regard to the proper stamp to be put on the deed, he could go to them; and if he was not satisfied with their decision, he could go to the Court of Exchequer.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, if his friends furnished him with the particulars of the several cases, he would see what could be done.

The preamble was agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be reported.

On clause 1,

LAW OF EVIDENCE, &c., BILI.

Sir F. Kelly said, two exceptions of quasi civil cases had been inserted in Lord Denman's Act. With the first of these. exceptions-cases for breach of promise of maraiage-clause 1 of the present bill was intended to deal. He did not deny that considerable objection might reasonably be made to the examination of the parties to this class of action; but he thought that the proviso of the member for Leominster, which would provide that there must be a promise in writing, would go far to remove those objections.

Sir G. Bowyer was afraid the clause would lead to a good many marriages which would not be productive of domestic happiness. If the clause of the hon. member for Leominster should be adopted, he thought it would nullify the clause altogether.

Mr. Roebuck said the arguments of his hon. and learned friend against the clause were just those used against Lord Brougham's Bill, the merit of which, by the way, belonged not to Lord Brougham but to Jeremy Bentham. Who was the party most likely to be injured in these cases? Clearly the woman; the man was nearly always the deceiver. His hon. and learned friend seemed to think that every man who found himself alone with a modest woman would be in danger, and would be said to have promised marriage. Now, his hon. and learned friend did not know enough of women. There would always be the safeguard of a jury, and if a young

woman said that his hon. and learned friend had made her a

proposal when he was alone with her, no jury would believe that young woman on her oath. He repeated that the wrong was invariably done by the man; he did not believe in such an article as a designing woman. As to the proviso suggested by Mr. Hardy, that the promise should be in writing, that would be an alteration of the substantive law, and, if adopted, there would be very few valid promises of marriage

whatever.

Mr. G. Hardy pitied the unfortunate man who ever defended an action for breach of promise, when persons like his hon. and learned friend were on the jury. He could not admit that men were always deceivers, and women never; and certainly juries did not deal out anything like equal justice between them. The other day a lady brought an action against a gentleman who was lame, and unable to take care of himself, and though her position would have been that of a nurse rather than of a wife, she recovered heavy damages for the loss of that position. In another case, a lady with 4000l. or 5000l. a year made a solemn promise of marriage to a gentleman, and when he, being jilted, brought his action for the damage he had suffered by losing the ma

terial comforts he supposed he was going to obtain, he was dismissed with a farthing damages, amid shouts of contempt.

1865

Was this a reciprocal action, and if so, was it treated fairly by juries? He would treat these promises in the way which promises of a much less serious character were treated under the Statute of Frauds. Because people were apt to construe that into a promise which was never meant to be one, the Statute of Frauds required that certain promises should be in writing; and if there was any one class of cases in which this precaution became necessary, it was in cases where marriage was in question, and promises were extorted, or imaginary promises were framed, by mothers and sisters anxious for the match, out of innocent conversations. No doubt, juries very much resembled in feeling his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Roebuck). When a young and pretty lady was set before them as having been deluded, there was no holding them in. He remembered hearing an old gentleman, who had been a barrister in India, tell the story of a Circassian slave, who had murdered the master of a harem there. This counsel had to defend her. It was a bad case; but he said, "Put her in her best dress, the more transparent the better; set her opposite the jury, and I will answer for the result." And the result was exactly what he predicted. She had stabbed the man, but the jury pardoned the crime for the sake of the interesting woman they saw before them. So in the case of an action for breach of promise. A young and interesting woman would get damages; but if a man was ever so young and interesting, he got no damages, but had to pay heavy costs, and get scouted besides. For his part, he thought this action might well be abolished, for he did not believe in the broken hearts of young ladies, who, directly they got a dowry in the shape of damages, got somebody else to console them. If, however, you must have the action, why not treat it as a serious matter? Why should not these promises be placed on the same footing as promises under the Statute of Frauds? In a class of cases with which magistrates at petty sessions were very familiar, material corroborative evidence of the woman's statement was required, and the law was altered specially to enforce that, in consequence of the iniquities which had been perpetrated. The alteration which was proposed was not to create new evidence of an old kind; it created, in fact, an entirely new action, and if it were carried, a class of cases would come into the courts as actions for breach of promise of marriage, which were now settled before magistrates at petty sessions. He did not intend to oppose the clause; indeed, he should not vote upon it at all, but if it were carried, he should move the addition of the following proviso:-" Provided always, that no such action shall be hereafter brought, unless the promise be in writing, signed by both the parties." It was a mistake to suppose, that when a promise was made, the young lady must sit down on the spot, and write it out, and then call on the gentleman to sign it. This was not the case, nor was it the case under the Statute of Frauds. If the promise could be made out from any number of letters between the parties, that was sufficient.

The Solicitor-General agreed that this was a very excep tional kind of action. Why it happened he could not say; but his experience in courts of justice was, that in actions for breaches of promise of marriage the women had it all their own way, and the men had no chance. The lady was well got up, placed in a conspicuous place, and the attention of the jury directed to her, and, of course, she was generally in tears. If she were placed in the witness-box and cried under cross-examination, as they always did, it would be all over with the man. The jury, to shew their chivalry, their admiration for the fair sex, and their contempt for their own, would immediately return a verdict for her. If this amend ment of the law were sanctioned, it would be found that a certain class of attorneys would come into court with a crop of actions for breach of promise, which no single man could stand against except he had the advantage of the hon. and learned member for Dundalk, and could protect himself by the vow of celibacy.

On the question that the clause as amended be agreed to,
The committee divided, and the numbers were,
For the clause
Against it

Majority

27

86

59

The clause was accordingly rejected. consequence of adultery might offer themselves as witnesses On clause 2, providing that parties to any suit instituted in on their own behalf,

Sir F. Kelly said, that the clause allowed parties to offer themselves as witnesses, but there was no power given by it to compel them to come forward to give evidence. The law at present was full of anomalies and inconveniences, to remedy which this clause had been framed, and he hoped that it would meet with the approval of the committee. I was monstrous that a lady should have to sit in court, and hear herself accused of adultery, and circumstances urged against her which she could explain or contradict, did not the law prohibit her from doing so.

The Attorney-General said, the hon. and learned gentleman proposed to give a power of offering evidence to either party in cases of adultery, but not in the ordinary way, nor subject to the ordinary rules of evidence. The parties were to be competent, but not compellable, to give evidence. He must say that he looked with some apprehension at what would be the practical working of the clause. But for the existing anomalies, and the high authority of the learned judge who presided over the particular court where these questions were most frequently raised, he should have hesitated to accept such an alteration in the law of evidence. But, if the law was to be altered, why should it be in a manner that was without precedent? He would press that question upon the committee more particularly on the very ground which appeared to him most to favour the change. Under the law, as it stood, we had an anomalous state of things, that in causes not originally founded on charge of adultery, but in which charges of that nature arose collaterally, or by way of defence, the husband or wife was compellable to give evidence. If it should be determined to disregard the great accessions to the present gross scandals that would be likely to arise from making husband and wife enter the witness-box to give a history of their whole lives, at least they should put the law upon a footing that would be free from inconsistencies and anomalies. He could not consent to the words in the clause, "Shall be allowed, if he or she shall

think fit."

Sir F. Kelly said the learned judge who had been referred to entertained a strong objection to compelling either husband or wife to prove his or her adultery. It was contrary to a fundamental principle of our law to make any person compellable to give evidence criminating himself. He, therefore, proposed a proviso to this effect:-" Provided always, that no person so competent shall be compellable to be called as a witness to give evidence in any issue which shall raise the question whether such person has been guilty of adultery."

Mr. Hunt asked how the hon. and learned member construed that proposition with the fifth clause, under which a person might be compelled in the course of his cross-examination to criminate himself.

Sir F. Kelly said that while a person would not be compelled by the bill to place himself in a position in which he would have to criminate himself, yet if he voluntarily tendered himself as a witness, he must submit to a cross-examination which might have that effect.

Mr. Ayrton thought the opinion of the committee ought to be taken on the clause and the proviso separately. The proviso was then put and negatived.

On the question that the clause stand part of the bill, Mr. Selwyn rose to move its omission. He did so for the reasons so well stated by the Attorney-General, and because he believed the clause, if adopted, would aggravate the scandals connected with these trials in the Divorce Court.

Mr. Malins on the same grounds opposed the clause. The scandals in the Divorce Court were already sufficiently great, but they would be infinitely greater if they had wives and husbands appearing there to swear against each other. As to persons having it in their own option to tender themselves as witnesses or not, if they refused to do so, would not that be construed as an admission of their guilt?' The existence of the Divorce Court was one of the greatest public calamities.

Mr. Walter felt some difficulty as a layman in offering an opinion on a subject of that kind; but he must take leave to say that he thought the arguments urged against that clause were by no means satisfactory. In a question of that nature what they had to was, not whether more or less scandal or disgrace would be produced by the operation of that clause, but whether or not it would facilitate the ends of justice, and tend to prevent innocent persons from suffering cruelty and

Monday, June 19.

PATENT LAWS.

Mr. Lowe asked the noble lord the chairman of the Patent Law Commission, what steps it was proposed to take with regard to the report of that commission.

Lord Stanley said the Patent Law Commission appointed three years ago was confined as regarded the scope of its inquiry. It was not a commission to inquire into the principle upon which the patent laws were founded, but simply into the working of the existing laws, and to suggest any amendments which might be made in the working of those laws. The report of that commission was before the House, and, as the House was aware, they had suggested many amendments in detail. But he was bound to say that, having had the subject under consideration now for nearly three years, having heard a great variety of evidence upon it, and being compelled to consider it in all its bearings, the effect of that inquiry on his mind had been to raise a very serious doubt as to the utility of patent laws at all. He was not the only member of the commission upon whom that effect had been produced. His hon. and learned friend the member for Belfast (Sir H. Cairns), who was not now present, had authorised him to say that in that expression of opinion he entirely concurred, and he might say the same for the hon. member for Bradford. ("Hear, hear," from Mr. Forster). That being the case, he should feel some difficulty in proposing to the House, either in the present or any future session, those amendments of detail which had been embodied in the report of the commission. The preliminary question, in his opinion, for the House to try was this, whether they meant to have a patent law at all. If the House came to a decision that they intended to retain the patent law, then he should confidently recommend the amendments which the commission had proposed as better qualified than any others in their opinion to meet the inevitable inconvenience which But the House arises from the continuance of the law. ought first to have an opportunity fairly and deliberately of deciding upon that larger question which had not been submitted to the Patent Law Commission, namely, whether it was expedient that patents for inventions should continue to be a part of the law.

The vote of 200,000l., the proportion of the total sum of 703,000l., required for this year for the purchase of lands