Commons Sitting of 30 March 1840

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:— County Constabulary.
Petitions presented. By Messrs. Williams, Bannerman, Wrightson, Baines, Bousfield, Greg, Thorneley, W. Patten, G. W. Wood, Brotherton, Hodges, Aglionby, Eliot, Hume, Gisborne, White, M. Philips, T. Duncombe, Grote, E. J. Stanley, Warburton, Fox Maule, R. Steuart, Hindley, Alderman Humphery, Lords Howick, Morpeth, Sir G. Grey, Sir G. Strickland, Captain Wilmington, and Colonel Salwey, from more than five hundred places, for, and by Messrs. J. Neeld, H. N. Burroughs, Eaton, Heath-cote, Fector, W. A'Court, Holmes, Fellows, Bailey, M. Parker, Packe, Sanford, Ainsworth, W. Duncombe, Bethell, Lister, Hodges, Handley, Darby, J. Round, Wodehouse, J. Howard, Sirs C. Burrell, G. Clerk, J. Duke, C. B. Vere, J. H. Smyth, R. Hill, J. Y. Buller, Lords Darlington, C. Manners, Grimston, G. Somerset, Powers-court, and Henniker, the Earl of Surry, Colonels Sibthorpe, and Gore Langton, and General Lygon, from a still greater number of places, against the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.— By Mr. Lockhart, from one place, for Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot— By Captain Alsager, from Battle, for Religious Education, and Church Extension.— By Mr. Richards, from Merionethshire, against the Grant to Maynooth College, and for Church Extension.— By Mr. M. Parker, for Protection to the Church in Canada.— By Mr. Muntz, from Glasgow, for Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot.— By Mr. Christopher, from the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.— By Lord J. Russell, from Quebec, against the proposed Union, and in favour of the Act of 1791.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, the noble Lord had stated on a former occasion, that he would take an
230
early opportunity of notifying to the House what course the Government would adopt with a view to the settlement of the existing differences between the Church of Scotland and the courts of law in that country. He trusted the noble Lord was now prepared to state whether the mind of the Government had yet been made up upon the matter, and whether any measure upon the subject would be proposed.
Lord John Russellsaid, that anxious as the Government were to bring forward a measure that would tend to allay the existing disputes between the church and the courts of law, they had come to the conclusion that no measure which would be likely to meet with the consent of Parliament, would be likely, at the same time, to put an end to the present state of things, and therefore, in the present excited state of feeling upon the subject, and previous to the meeting of the General Assembly, it was not their intention to propose any measure upon the subject.
Sir R. Peel: Was he to infer that the Government had not abandoned altogether the attempt to legislate, so as to put an end to the differences?
Lord John Russellsaid, he thought he could state that the Government generally were in favour of attempting legislation on the subject; and therefore, if the General Assembly did not succeed in putting the matters in dispute upon a. more satisfactory footing, they would very likely make some attempts towards that object,
Subject dropped.

CANADA— CLERGY RESERVES.
Mr. Pakingtonwished to know whether the Colonial Legislature of Upper Canada had the power, under the Act of Parliament, to make allotments of the reserved lands, and whether, if they had, it was competent to them to apply those reserves to any other than the purposes of the Established Church?
Lord J. Russellreplied, that he could entertain no doubt as to the power of the Legislature of Upper Canada. This was not his opinion alone, but that conveyed in a despatch written by the Earl of Ripon to the Governor-general, and to which directions were given that the clergy reserves should be sold, and added to the Crown revenues, to make certain provi-

231
sions, both for the ministers of the Church of England, and of other religions. That despatch was confirmed by Lord Aberdeen. He again repeated, that he had never any doubt on this subject, and he could not conceive how any one reading the act could entertain a reasonable doubt regarding it.
Mr. Goulburnwished to know whether the Earl of Ripon, when he expressed the opinion alluded to, had had the benefit of the advice of the law advisers of the Crown.
Lord John Russellwas not aware that he had.

CANADA— INCOMES OF BISHOPS.
Mr. Pakingtonasked whether, as the Clergy Reserves Bill was limited to Upper Canada, the noble Lord had any measure in contemplation by which he could relieve the Bishop of Montreal from those pluralities which that right rev. Prelate was now compelled to hold; and in the event of the death of the present Bishop of Montreal, he wished to know in what manner the noble Lord proposed to provide for the future support of the Protestant bishopric of Lower Canada? He also inquired whether the noble Lord was aware that the Bishop of Toronto had been obliged, in consequence of his appointment to that bishopric, to relinquish the office he held of President of the College of Toronto, and had thus been deprived of above one-fourth part of his income? Did not Dr. Strachan, previous to his acceptance of the bishopric, distinctly stipulate that his income should continue what it then was, until some permanent arrangement could be effected? and did the noble Lord intend in any manner to compensate the Bishop of Toronto, for so cruel and unjust a diminution of his means, at a moment when he was of necessity obliged to incur greatly increased expenses?
Lord John Russellsaid, that the Bishop of Toronto received, as Archdeacon of York 300 1.; as rector of Toronto 533 l.; as principal of King's College, 250 l.; total 1,083 l. Archdeacon Strachan was appointed Bishop of Toronto in 1839, on his own offer to accept the office without any addition to his then emoluments. In the discussions which took place on the Archdeacon's proposal, that Upper Canada should be erected into a separate see, Lord Glenelg consulted the Archbishop of
232
Canterbury, with whom the measure was arranged; and it was distinctly laid down that in assenting to the proposal, her Majesty's Government could not pledge themselves to any extent to provide a salary for the office. When the Bishop was lately in this country, the right rev. Prelate requested him to notify to the Governor, that till some satisfactory arrangement could be made for the support of the see, the bishop would be content to remain with his present income. He was told in answer, that there remained nothing to state to the Lieutenant-governor on this point, that officer being in possession of all the correspondence which passed at the time the bishopric was created. But to remove any misapprehension of the terms of that arrangement, it was added that the colonial office conceived that the agreement to accept the preferment, without any addition to the emoluments received as Archdeacon, did not imply that the emoluments so received were guaranteed by the government. The following was the income of the Bishop of Montreal:— As Bishop of Montreal, 1,000 l.; as Archdeacon of Quebec, 500 l.; as rector of ditto, 400 l.; house rent, 90 l.; total, 1,990 l. There was, at present, before the Treasury an arrangement, proposed by the bishop, for the consolidation of the items of which his income is composed. The intention was, to fix the bishop's salary at 1,750 l., there being assigned to the bishop's curate, (who would fill the office of Rector of Quebec), a salary of 250 l. being the stipend which the bishop at present allows him.
Subject at an end.

LUDLOW ELECTION.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, there was a question which he wished to bring before the House, and which he did not think could be allowed to stand over another day, as the committee on the Ludlow Election had been appointed. If the House would permit him, therefore, he would call their attention to the petition, which had been printed that morning with the Votes, and which he had presented on a. former occasion from the electors of Ludlow. In the first place, he begged to move, which he believed was the more regular course, that the petition be read by the clerk at the table. [Petition read.] He had thought it his duty to present that petition, and

233
to call the attention of the House to it. When the question was discussed on the 2nd of March, no two of the lawyers who spoke upon it were of the same opinion. It was unfortunate, that on that occasion the House did not take a more decided course, and lay down a rule by which the Committee should be bound. The parties were advised by their counsel that the committee, as at present constituted, was not a legal tribunal; and therefore they petition for leave to bring in a bill to render it legal, and to confirm its proceedings. The illegality of the tribunal would not affect only these petitioners. In what situation again, would either party be placed, in cases of perjury committed by witnesses. The contest would be severe, and the temptation to perjury would be great. An oath was not administered to witnesses before that House or its Committees, and if the proceedings were not legal, they could not be prosecuted for false evidence. The question being whether the words were positive or directing —a high legal authority declaring they were positive—if that were so, no act of the House could make the subsequent proceedings regular. The hon. Member moved that leave be given to bring in a bill to legalize the proceedings of the Ludlow Election Committee, and suspend the proceedings in the meantime.
Sir W. Follettsaid, if there were any doubt upon the point, he would support the bill. There was no difference of opinion on the point to be submitted to the House. It was quite clear that the act expressed this, that if, at the close of a session, there should be a petition, the order for which had not been discharged, it should next session be referred to the General Committee—the recognizances entered into, and the petitions in their order referred to the Committee, in the order in which they were presented. This would not refer to a petition to defend a seat: the petitioners having been allowed to defend the seat, stood in the situation of the sitting Member. There was not the slightest danger of the proceedings being so utterly irregular, that indictments for false evidence would not be sustained.
Sir E. Peelreferred to the sixtieth clause, in which he considered every doubt was obviated as to the regularity of the proceedings.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, if the House were
234
clear on the point, probably the parties would be satisfied. He hoped the House would so far sanction the proceedings as to put it on the journals that they had negatived the introduction of the Bill, in the belief that no doubt existed.
Motion negatived.

LORD SEATON'S ANNUITY.
Lord J. Russellmoved the order of the day for the House to go into a committee to consider the Queen's message relative to Lord Seaton.
House in Committee.
Her Majesty's message read.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that although he could not doubt that the House would comply with her Majesty's message on this occasion, yet he thought it was due to the distinguished person on the part of whom he was about to move a resolution, to state, at least, some of the services which it had been Lord Seaton's fortune to perform for the benefit of his country. Lord Seaton entered the army in the year 1794. He joined the 20th regiment as lieutenant in 1796. In the years 1798 and 1799, he served with the armies under Sir Ralph Abercrombie and his Royal Highness the Duke of York; he was engaged in general actions all through the war. When in Egypt he took part in the operations before Alexandria, after which he was stationed for some time at Malta. He then became military secretary to the general commanding in chief, and obtained a majority. Afterwards, having succeeded as military secretary to Sir John Moore, he was made lieutenant-colonel and military secretary to Sir John Moore; he entered Spain with, him, and he was present there throughout the war. Having expressed a strong desire to revisit the Peninsula, he again proceeded thither with Sir Arthur Wellesley. In this situation he was present at the battle of Busaco, and after having filled various other situations, he rose to the command of the 52nd, the most distinguished regiment in the light division. At the head of this regiment he was in various engagements, and among others in the battle of Albuera. He was afterwards at Ciudad Rodrigo. After some absence he returned to the army in 1813, and was present at Orthes and Toulouse. Lord Seaton was also present at the battle of Waterloo. Thus the noble Lord had been in the principal military events that had

235
occurred from the year 1796 down to 1815,taking part in all the dangers, fatigues, and privations of our gallant army in various quarters, and inferior to none of the officers in gallantry and skill. Since that time Lord Seaton had been employed in various situations in the colonial service. In 1828 he went out as Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, and afterwards took the command as Commander-in-chief of all the troops in Canada. Afterwards, during the troubles in Canada, he became the principle person on whom rested the whole weight and responsibility of preserving the provinces in their allegiance to this country. When the traitors appeared in arms Lord Seaton showed the same courage and firmness which he had displayed against the foreign enemies of England, joined to remarkable humanity and gentleness of disposition. The giving of the chief authority to Sir J. Colborne was a consequence of the retirement of Lord Gosford, when he thought that to conciliate the adverse party was hopeless, and that it would be useless for him to stay longer. It happened, likewise, that when another noble Lord thought he could not remain in that Government with advantage to the interest of the Crown, the management of affairs again devolved on this distinguished officer. Nothing was farther from his intentions than to undertake these duties. It was then ten years that he had been absent in Canada, after a long war; he was anxious, therefore, to return home; but as it was the wish of Lord Durham and of the Home Government that he should be called to the command, he stayed and put down successfully all attempts at insurrection, and remained until the Government thought that conciliatory measures might be adopted, and that an union of the provinces should be tried. He did not wish, after having been Governor-general, to return to the situation of Lieutenant-governor; and he thought that he had a fair right to some recompense. After Lord Seaton had performed these services during a period of forty-five years, the House of Commons, he thought, must be anxious to meet her Majesty's wishes to give Lord Seaton some mark of the royal favour. He need not enter further into a description of his conduct; a simple reference to facts without any description of events was enough to prove to the House that Lord Seaton's claims upon the gratitude of the House were well founded. The
236
noble Lord then moved that an annual sum of 2,000 l. be granted to her Majesty out of the consolidated fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said annual sum to be payable from the 23rd of March last, to be secured in the most beneficial manner for the use of Lieutenant-general Lord Seaton, and the two next surviving heirs male of the body of the said Lord Seaton.
Sir R. Peelhad great pleasure in seconding the proposal of the noble Lord. He entirely agreed with the noble Lord that the simple record of the services performed by Lord Seaton— the simple mention of the fact that he had been for forty-five years in the service of his country, taking an honourable and distinguished share in the most glorious events of that important era— was sufficient. It was, moreover, impossible to add anything to the simple eloquence with which the noble Lord had pronounced a well-deserved eulogium upon that distinguished officer. The distinction conferred upon Sir John Colborne was a tribute not only to himself, but to the character of the British army, that it should be able to exhibit brilliant examples of individuals who had passed their lives in military duties, and yet had learned no lesson incompatible with the strict, humane, and wise fulfillment of their civil duties. The noble Lord opposite had alluded to one part of the civil services of Sir John Colborne; but there was another portion of his civil services to which he could refer from personal knowledge, and to which, as the noble Lord had omitted it, he (Sir R. Peel) felt bound to allude. When Sir John Colborne, now Lord Seaton, was Lieutenant-governor of the island of Guernsey he had had, as Secretary of State, some correspondence with Sir John Colborne, and the universal satisfaction which followed the discharge of his duty as Lieutenant-governor, and the general testimony which was borne to the discretion, and temperance, and humanity which he had then displayed, all had led him to believe that if Sir John Colborne should ever again be called upon to act in a more extended sphere, in a similar position, that he would equally distinguish himself. He would not take up the time of the House by dwelling upon the present topic, but following the example of the noble Lord opposite, would conclude by saying, that it should be one of the greatest sources of satisfaction to the House of

237
Lords and the House of Commons of this country that they could pay to distinguished public services the highest rewards that could be paid to them, in the expression of a nation's gratitude.
Mr. Humesaid, the noble Lord had spoken of forty-five years of service rendered by Lord Seaton, and the right hon. baronet had pronounced it impossible to add anything to the just eulogium of the noble lord. He (Mr. Hume), however, would wish particularly to consider the last four or five years of service performed by Lord Seaton. He thought that her Majesty, unless Lord Seaton had a fortune to support his rank, would have done well in not creating him a peer. All such creations were improper; they only tended to raise up a class of persons who in a short time would become burdens upon the state. There were enough of them already. He, therefore, hoped that Lord Seaton had an ample fortune to maintain his dignity; and then the question arose whether that fortune, with a peerage, was not amply sufficient without a grant of the public money. He differed entirely from the noble lord, as to the services rendered by Sir John Colborne. True the noble lord had stated the prior services of that officer, but the noble lord forget to mention that he was removed as unfit lo fulfil the duties of Governor of Upper Canada. Let the noble lord produce the correspondence now in the Foreign-office, proving the complete incompetence of Sir John Colborne to conduct the government of that province. He (Mr. Hume) would ask the noble Lord if he was not aware that that was the case? The noble Lord had not been long connected with the Colonial-office, but he was one of the Ministers who concurred in the recal of Sir John Colborne. Instead of being recalled, however, he returned to Lower Canada, where he was appointed Commander of the Forces. He, therefore, took it for granted, that the pension was not to be granted to Lord Seaton on account of services rendered on an occasion when her Majesty's Ministers thought fit to remove him for incompetency. The question for the House to consider was, what had been the conduct of Lord Seaton during the time he was commander in-chief of Lower Canada. He considered that the rebellion in that province was attributable to the conduct of Lord Seaton, and he would further say, that he
238
differed entirely from the noble Lord, in the eulogy he had pronounced upon Sir J. Colborne, for he thought there had been an entire want of policy, judgment, and forethought on the part of that officer. What would have been the consequence in Ireland, if the lord-lieutenant of the day had issued orders to arrest some forty or fifty of the leading men of that country, without any charge made against them? Why there would have been an instant outbreak. It was the conduct of Sir John Colborne that had produced the outbreak in Canada; he it was who sanctioned the issuing of warrants against fifty or sixty individuals— of which proceeding no explanation had ever been given, although he had moved for a return of the grounds upon which it had been taken. He knew also, that a party of yeomanry, called volunteers, had gone out to arrest two magistrates— men highly beloved and respected in their district— and had placed them in open carts, and carried them round the villages, for the purpose of exposing and disgracing them. That measure led to the outbreak. So far, therefore, from rewarding Sir J. Colborne, he ought to have been removed from his situation as unworthy to fulfil its duties. However, he had the support of her Majesty's Government. They had gone on, and a pretty mess they had got into. They had come down to the House to propose a vote that perhaps might amount to 150,000 l. of the public money, and he would ask if, at this time and in the present position of the country, it was proper to vote away that sum under circumstances, to say the least, so extremely doubtful? He conceived that the manner in which that unfortunate rebellion had been put down— the way in which the villages had been assailed, and the inhabitants butchered, were disgraceful, and without parallel in modern warfare. Was a distinction to be conferred upon Sir John Colborne for acts such as these, placing him on a footing with the most distinguished officers— men without stain or reproach? He never would believe that hon. Gentlemen, if they would look at the whole proceedings that had taken place from the outbreak in Canada, as they appeared in the public despatches laid upon the table of the House, could think Sir J. Colborne entitled to the character that had been given to him as a man of humanity, wisdom, and discretion, He

239
should, therefore, feel it his duty, if any I individual of the House would second his motion, to oppose the present grant; and he would be prepared at a future time to place upon record, an account of those proceedings which he thought rendered Lord Seaton unworthy of the honours conferred upon him. He knew nothing of that individual but as a British officer; and on public grounds alone he thought that this grant was ill advised, and ought not to receive the sanction of the House. He should, therefore, oppose it.
Sir Henry Hardingehad heard with great regret the very characteristic speech of the hon. Member for Kilkenny; but, at the same time, he was glad to hear that there was some doubt on the mind of the hon. Gentleman as to whether he could induce any one individual in the House to second his amendment. He could very well understand that the hon. Member felt considerable objection towards any reward, either of honour or by a vote of this House towards his (Sir H. Hardinge's) noble and gallant Friend, because, although he was not very intimately acquainted with the affairs of Upper Canada, he had some recollection of a correspondence of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, in which he boasted to the traitor Mackenzie of his hope that the colony would throw off the yoke of the mother country. When he remembered this, and remembered also that Sir John Colborne put down that traitor, he could understand that the hon. Member for Kilkenny had no great sympathy with the conqueror of his Friend. He could say, from his personal knowledge of Lord Seaton, that the British army did not possess an officer who had gone through all the gradations of his profession with greater honour and greater success. Whether he considered Lord Seaton as the commander of the 52d regiment, or as the friend and companion-in-arms of Sir John Moore, or as the commander of the forces in British North America, his career had been distinguished by every military honour and accomplishment. By sheer dint of personal merit he had forced his way to the highest rank and highest honours of the army, and had not only distinguished himself as a military man, but by his kindness and humanity during all the Peninsular war, which made him universally beloved by both officers and men. From personal regard and professional admiration of the
240
merits of Lord Seaton, he (Sir Henry Hardinge) had been induced to express his sense of the services rendered by that distinguished individual to his country; but after the manner in which the noble Lord and right hon. Baronet had spoken, it would be useless for him to add more. He would, however, say that he particularly admired one trait in the character of Lord Seaton, namely that when he was suspended from his civil command, he cheer fully resumed his military duties, thus separating himself far from all suspicion of selfish consideration, and holding out to the officers of the army the brightest example. He thought the recommendation of Ministers a wise and just one, and until he heard the speech of the hon. Member for Kilkenny he was in hopes that the House, by an unanimous vote, would have evinced their appreciation of the important services of Lord Seaton.
Mr. W. Williamsrose to second the motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny. He did not think the conduct of Lord Seaton marked either by wisdom or humanity. It was easy to vote away the public money, but not so easy to pay these large sums when voted. At the present time the mass of the population was in the greatest distress and destitution; the expenditure of the country was exceeding the revenue; and the House had not heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he intended to make up the deficiency. Under such circumstances the public money ought not to be voted away without good and sufficient cause, which in this instance he conceived had not been shown.
Sir H. Vivianmust bear his testimony, in common with his gallant Friend opposite, to the qualities of Lord Seaton. No man was more beloved in the army, nor was there any man on whose humanity he had heard greater encomiums. He was quite certain, that his brother soldiers would receive with gratitude this mark of favour and honour bestowed upon him.
Mr. Humehad read the correspondence alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member, and now saw nothing in it to blame. The evils of Canada had arisen from the baneful domination of Downing-street, for it was well-known that the mismanagement of the Colonial-office had led to all the mischiefs which had arisen.
Sir C. Greybegged to set the hon. Member for Kilkenny right as to some of

241
his facts. The outbreak to which the hon. Member had alluded had occurred during the time of the Earl of Gosford, and Sir J. Colborne assumed the government at the time the country was under martial law. He concurred in the opinion which had been expressed of the magnanimity and generosity displayed by Sir J. Colborne, now Lord Seaton, in returning from New York to assume the military command after his removal from the Governorship, and he was sure no mark of favour could be more worthily bestowed than that now proposed to that noble and gallant officer.
Mr. Hawesadmitted the skill, bravery, and humanity, of Sir John Colborne, but thought, that Parliament was too prone to bestow honours upon mere military service. He objected to this, whilst the services of other men who had exerted themselves far more advantageously to the country were left wholly without reward. He objected, too, to the term to which the pension in this instance was to extend; for if he understood the noble Lord correctly, it was to continue for three lives. He should like, however, to be more distinctly informed upon that point. Looking to the services of Sir John Colborne, and comparing them with the services of other distinguished persons, he must say, that there never appeared to him to be a case in which a pension or a peerage limited to a single life could be more properly bestowed.
Lord John Russell, in reply to the hon. Member for Lambeth's question, stated, that the pension in this instance was granted upon the precedent of the pensions and peerages bestowed upon Lord Hill, Lord Lynedoch, and other distinguished soldiers in 1814, and would extend to the same term, namely, to two lives beyond that of the present possessor.
The Committee divided:— Ayes 82; Noes 16: Majority 66.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Captain

Blair, J.

Adam, Admiral

Brodie, W. B.

Alston, R.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Clay, W.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Archbold, R.

Collier, J. T.

Baines, E.

Coote, Sir C. H

Baring, right hn. F.T.

Courtenay, P.

Barnard, E. G.

Craig, W. G.

Barry, G. S.

Dalmeny, Lord

Bellew, R. M,

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Bewes, T.

Denison, W, J.

242

Drummond, H. H.

Polhill, F.

Follett, Sir W.

Price, Sir R.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Pringle, A.

French, F.

Protheroe, E.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Pryme, G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Pusey, P.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Russell; Lord J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Handley, H.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Slaney, R. A.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Spencer, hon. F.

Hodges, T. L.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Hoskins, K.

Stock, Dr.

Kemble, H.

Talbot, J. H.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. E.

Teignmouth, Lord

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Lincoln, Earl of

Tufnell, H,

Macaulay, rt hn. T. B.

Turner, E.

Mackenzie, T.

Vivian, J. E.

Moneypenny, T. G.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.

Morgan, G. M. R.

Wodehouse, E.

Nicholl, J.

Wood, Sir M.

O'Brien, W. S.

Wood, G. W.

O'Connell, J.

Worsley, Lord

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Yates, J. A.

Parker, J.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

TELLERS.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Stanley, E. J.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Stuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Muntz, G. F.

Bridgeman, H.

Philips, M.

Callaghan, D.

Vigors, N. A.

Collins, W.

Wakley, T.

Fielden, J.

Wallace, R.

Hall, Sir B.

Wood, B.

Hawes, B.

Lister, E. C.

TELLERS.

Marsland, H.

Hume, J.

Morris, D.

Williams, W.

Resolution agreed to.
House resumed.

ADMIRALTY COURT—JUDGE'S SALARY.
House in Committee to consider of the salary of the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty.
Mr. More O'Ferrallmoved a resolution to the effect, "That 4,000 l. a-year be paid to the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty out of the Consolidated Fund."
Mr. Humeobserved, that hitherto the salary of the judge, as derived from fees and other emoluments, had rarely exceeded 3,225 l. a-year. Thinking, in the present embarrassed state of the finances, that all salaries of this description should be diminished rather than increased, he begged to more as an amendment, that

243
the vote in this instance be reduced from 4,000 l. to 3,000 l. a-year.
Lord John Russellremarked, that, although the salary of the Judge of the Admiralty Court was comparatively low in time of peace, it had generally amounted to 7,000 l. or 8,000 l. a-year in time of war. It was now proposed to give him a fixed and uniform salary of 4,000 l. a-year; and he apprehended, that it would not be possible to obtain a gentleman of sufficient ability to discharge the duties of this important office at a lower rate of pay.
Mr. W. Williamswas decidedly opposed to the motion. He thought, that the proposition for increasing the judge's salary to 4,000 l. a-year arose solely from a desire to confer a benefit upon a political partisan. If it was really necessary that the amount of the salary should be increased, why was it not done whilst the present judge's predecessors were sitting upon the bench? Were they less eminent, less capable of discharging the duties of their office—less deserving of an ample reward? No; but they were not politically connected with the Government. He should support the amendment.
Colonel Sibthorpwas rarely reduced to the necessity of voting with the hon. Member for Kilkenny; but if that hon. Member went to a division in the present instance, he should feel bound to support him. Under the present circumstances, before the production of the budget, before the House knew anything of what new taxes might be imposed; he thought it would be most injudicious to assent to a vote of this nature. No explanation had been given of the grounds upon which the vote was asked; and that was another reason for opposing it. He knew nothing of the secrets of Downing-street. He never went there, nor did he ever look that way; for he hated the sight of the place.
Mr. More O'Ferrallobserved, that the objections now raised to the vote were merely a repetition of those that were stated last year, when a similar proposition was made to the House. He thought it was obvious that a person of the highest legal attainment could not be induced to accept an office of this nature for a smaller amount of salary than that now proposed. He trusted that the House would not refuse that which was merely a matter of justice.
Mr. Muntzhad opposed the motion respecting the allowance to Lord Seaton,
244
because it was not a provision for the individual merely, but for his son and his grandson. But, in the present case, there was nothing said about either the son or the grandson of the learned judge of the Admiralty; and as he was of opinion that so eminent a judge ought to be adequately paid, and as he agreed with the noble Lord that it was much better to give him a fixed salary than to allow him one fluctuating on the contingency of peace or war, he should support the present motion.
Dr. Nickollsaid, that in his humble judgment, considering that the salary was to be a fixed one, during both the time of peace and of war, it was not more than adequate for the services of such a judge. In the case of the judge of the Admiralty Court, it was very true that during a time of peace there was not a great number of heavy cases before the court, but questions of the greatest difficulty did occasionally arise, not merely affecting our internal arrangements, but affecting questions of peace and war.
Mr. Wallacewas of opinion, that all the judges in this country were overpaid, and this would be adding to the evil. He should therefore support the amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny.
The committee divided on the amendment:— Ayes 17; Noes 86: Majority 69.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Polhill, F.

Brotherton, J.

Salwey, Colonel

Duncombe, T.

Sibthorp Colonel

Fielden, J.

Turner, W.

Grimsditch, T.

Vigors, N.

Langdale, hon. C.

Wakley, T.

Lister, E. C.

Wallace, R.

Marsland, H.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Mr. Hume

Philips, M.

Mr. H. Williams

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Clay, W.

Alston, R.

Collier, J.

Anson, hon. Col.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Archbold, R.

Craig, W. G.

Baines, E.

Curry, Mr. Sergeant

Baring, rt. hon. F,T.

Dalmeny, Lord

Barnard, E. G.

Denison, W. I.

Bellew, R. M.

Evans, G.

Benett, J.

Follett, Sir W.

Bewes, T.

French, F.

Blake, W. J.

Goring, H. D.

Bridgman, H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Brodie, W. B.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Buller, C.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Busfeild, W.

Hall, Sir B.

245

Handley, H.

Russell, Lord J.

Hawes, B.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Hawkins, J. H.

Sanford, E. A.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Sheil, rt. hn. Sir L.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Slaney, R. A.

Hoskins, K.

Smith, R. V.

Hutton R.

Spencer, hon. F.

James, W.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Kemble, H.

Stock, Dr.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Strickland, Sir G.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Strutt, E.

Mackenzie, T.

Sutton, hon. J. H. T.

Monypenny, T. G.

Talbot, J. H.

Muntz, G. F.

Teignmouth, Lord

Nicholl, J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

O'Connell, J.

Tufnell, H.

O'Ferrall, B. M.

Turner, K.

Pakington, J. S.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir H.

Parker, J.

White, A.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Wilde, Mr. Serg.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Wood, C.

Ponsonby, C. E. A. C.

Wood, Sir M.

Price, Sir R.

Wood, G. W.

Protheroe, E.

Worsley, Lord

Pryme, G.

Yates, J. A.

Pusey, P.

TELLERS.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Stanley, E. J.

Rice, E. R.

Steuart, R.

Original resolution agreed to.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved that the fees and emoluments received by the Court of Admiralty should be carried to the account of the fee fund, and be applied in the payment of the salaries of the register and assistant-register, and other officers of the said court, and that the deficiency, if any, should be made up out of the Consolidated fund.
Colonel Sibthorpwished to be informed what length of services on the part of the judges and offices of the Court of Admiralty was required to entitle them to a retiring pension?
Mr. More O'Ferrallsaid, the same principle respecting superannuated allowances was applied to the officers of the Admiralty Court as to other officers serving under the Crown.
Resolution agreed to, House resumed, the report to be received.

PUBLIC WORKS, EXCHEQUER BILLS.
House again in committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated, that it became necessary for him to ask the House for a further sum to carry on the Public works, as sanctioned by the Public Works Act. The sum at the disposal of the commissioners of public works in Ireland was exhausted; and as it was desirable that no delay should take place in the completion of those works, more
246
particularly with respect to the erection of workhouses in Ireland, he took the earliest opportunity of placing further funds at their disposal. The sum required for Ireland would be considerable, and that, of course, made the present motion larger than it otherwise would be. The right hon. Gentleman moved as a resolution, "That her Majesty be enabled to direct Exchequer bills to the amount of 1,200,000 l. to be issued to the Commissioners of Public Works, to be advanced by them towards the completion of the public works in Ireland, and for the encouragement of fisheries, and the employment of the poor, and that security for the repayment of the same shall be given on the Consolidated Fund."
Mr. Humewished to have an account of what had already been done by the commissioners. He did not understand what was meant by the encouragement of fisheries, and should like to have that explained. He thought that no money ought to be supplied by the public for undertakings for which private capital should be furnished.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if his hon. Friend would move for the information he required, it should be produced.
Mr. Goulburnwould not offer any opposition to the motion, because Parliament having determined that a certain number of poor-houses should be built in Ireland, it was not competent for the House to refuse the sum necessary for that purpose. With respect to the former advances for public works, he had no hesitation in admitting that those sums had been very beneficially employed, and by no means disadvantageously so as regarded the pecuniary interests of the public. But he was anxious to obtain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some assurance that this grant would not be adding permanently to the unfunded debt. The funded debt had, through the medium of these advances, been for a number of years gradually increasing, till it arrived at an amount extremely inconvenient indeed. He wished to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of making some arrangement, by which the money granted for the repayment of these Exchequer bills would be strictly applied to the redemption of the Exchequer bills as they became due, and not appropriated to the general account.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought the right hon. Gentleman could not be aware of the present course, that was taken with respect to Exchequer bills. During the last three years arrangements had been made by which the money granted for the repayment of Exchequer bills was applied strictly to that purpose. The old practice of raising a loan was by the issue of Exchequer bills; but that practice had been abandoned, and during the period he had mentioned the money had been applied in canceling the bills as they became due.
Mr. Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what rate of interest was paid on the bills.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that 2¼d. a day was the interest paid, being somewhere about the rate of interest at the present time.
Mr. Williamssaid, that 2¼d. a day interest was a higher rate than was at the present time charged by monied men. He saw no reason why a higher rate of interest should be paid on the unfunded debt than on the funded debt.
Mr. Humesaid, 2¼d. a day interest was 3l. 16s. per cent, per annum, and that was more than the fund realised. The interest on Exchequer bills always used to be lower than the current interest of the money market until the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman overstocked the market with bills; and he thought the raising of the interest was a clear proof that the right hon. Gentleman himself had a greater number of bills in the market than he ought to have. The present grant would increase the evil. His opinion was, that the interest on Exchequer bills was too high.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas the last person to wish to pay a rate of interest beyond what he thought was right and safe under the circumstances of the case. He admitted, that the interest on Exchequer bills was somewhat higher than the rate of interest on the funds, but he did not think that that difference was so much in consequence of the great number of bills in the market as in consequence of the attempts made to cut down the interest of money to too low a rate.
Mr. Kemblesuggested, that the time for which the Exchequer bills should run should be shortened, and made payable quarterly. At present many persons objected to take them as security, because
248
they were not readily available for the payment of Government duties, in consequence of the length of time they had to run.
Resolution agreed to. House resumed. The Report was ordered to be received tomorrow.

TOBACCO AND GLASS.
The House again in Committee on the act regulating the excise duties on Tobacco and Glass.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that all parties connected with the different branches of the tobacco trade had, by memorial or by petition, applied to the Government for an alteration of the law with respect to the preparation of tobacco. According to the law it was allowable in the preparation of tobacco to mix up water and colouring matter; but while the parties apparently only used those ingredients, they, in fact, threw in a quantity of molasses, which tended to the adulteration of the article. With respect to this point the law was very defective and objectionable to the fair trader, inasmuch as it was ineffectual for the prevention of fraudulent practices by the unfair trader. The Excise-office had used every effort to carry the law into execution, but without effect. It became, therefore, necessary that the Legislature should take one or other of two courses—either that of making the law so stringent as to carry into effect what was the intention of the Legislature, or, on the other hand to adopt the course recommended by the commissioners of Excise inquiry; that of doing away with altogether the system of surveys. After the best consideration he could give to the subject, having called for the opinions of the Commissioners of Customs, and of the Chairman of the Commissioners of Excise, and also in consequence of the recommendation of the commission which had sat upon the Excise duties, it appeared to him, that the case stood thus—that they could not make the law effectual without carrying restrictions to such an extent as to interfere most injuriously with the trade. He felt justified, therefore, in adopting the recommendations of the Commissioners of Excise inquiry, and doing away with, those restrictions, which were of no service, except to give an advantage to the unfair over the fair trader. The course he proposed was open to some risks, he admitted, but he hoped the House would

249
pass the resolution which he would propose, and allow him to bring in a bill, which he would read a second time and print, but not proceed further till after Easter, that those interested in the trade might have a full opportunity of considering it. The resolution was, that certain laws which regulated the Excise on the manufacture of tobacco should be repealed, and other regulations substituted for the same.
Mr. Humewas satisfied, that this was a good step, but he wished it had gone further. It was because the duty was 1,000 or 1,200 per cent, on the value that smuggling took place; and he was convinced, that if the duty were reduced there would be more revenue.
Lord G. Somersetdisliked tobacco as much as any one could, but he would draw the especial attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the difficulties attending the removal of tobacco from one part of the country to the other.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied that some of the restrictions which he was about to remove were the very restrictions of which the noble Lord had heard complaints.— Resolution agreed to.
The Chancellor of the Exchequernext referred to the excise duties on glass. During the last year such improvements had been made in the manufacture of broad or smelt glass, that it was now as good as German or sheet glass, and yet it paid but half the duty. Last year his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) had introduced a bill with a view of defining what was broad glass, and of remedying the discrepancy between the duties, but the experiment had been found a complete failure; for, by a slight alteration, parties continued to manufacture at the lower duty glass quite equal to German sheet glass; and this opened the door to another fraud on the revenue, for there was a drawback on glass exported, and it was difficult to distinguish that which had paid the lower from that which had paid the higher duty. The only mode by which he could meet these difficulties was, to make a slight increase in the rate of duty paid for the broad glass, and he would, therefore, move, that the duty now payable on broad glass be rescinded, and the same duty be payable as on crown or German sheet glass; and that the laws regulating the excise on glass be altered accordingly.
Mr. Humesaid, that they ought not to raise the duty on that kind of glass which was most in use by the lower classes; they ought rather to reduce the higher rate of duty.
Mr. Filzstephen Frenchremarked, that if these duties were continued it was quite clear that the trade would be lost to this country. Already were we being driven out of the foreign market, and, as he was informed, the German trade had been entirely taken by the Americans.
Resolution agreed to.
House resumed—report to be received.

COUNTY CONSTABULARY.
Mr. F. Maulemoved the second reading of this bill.
Sir E. Knatchbullsuggested that both this bill and the bill of the hon., Member for Kent (Mr. L. Hodges) should be sent to a select committee, in order that one good measure might be substituted, and brought forward by the Government.
Mr. W. Milessaid, that great blame was due to the Government for introducing the bill of last year at so late a period of the Session. Had it been introduced earlier, it would have been scouted. He was sorry to see that some counties had adopted it, but he was happy to say Somersetshire was not of the number. The proposition to adopt it there had been rejected by a large majority of magistrates. It was an Act which the counties of England generally were indisposed to adopt, on account of the heavy expense which it entailed on the rate-payers; and he, therefore, hoped that the Government would act upon the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and bring forward some better and less expensive measure, some measure based upon the ancient constabulary of the country, and more likely to give general satisfaction.
Mr. Benettgreatly regretted that the bill of last year had been adopted in the county he had the honour to represent, against his opposition to it. Those who had to pay the rates, were at the time wholly ignorant of the nature of it, but were now as much opposed to it as he had been from the commencement, for they found that, although there had not been the slightest increase of crime, the county-rate was actually doubled to support this new, and he must say unconstitutional, kind of army. He admitted that there had been some negligence upon the part

251
of the local constables, and, perhaps, the magistrates; but, at the same time, that might have been remedied by a revision of the old system, without throwing upon the counties this enormous additional expense. Nine-tenths of the crime in the county with which he was connected were in the four principal manufacturing towns. Why, then, lie would ask, should the whole expense, consequent on the operation of this measure, be thrown upon the counties? He contended, that in justice, the expense ought to fall upon the general funds of the country.
Mr. Protheroesaid, that the objections to the Act amongst the magistrates of the county of Gloucester were not so strong as the hon. Member represented them to be in Wiltshire, and it had there been generally adopted.
Mr. Pakingtonfelt as anxious as any hon. Member could be, not to embark in expense; nevertheless, he cordially approved of the step taken by her Majesty's Ministers. Looking at the general state of the country— at the increase of crime (the expenses of criminal prosecutions having actually doubled in the county with which he was connected) looking at the alarming increase of vagrancy, which was one of the most fertile causes of the increase of crime, he had no hesitation in expressing an opinion that her Majesty's Ministers were entitled to the thanks of the country for having brought in the bill. He could not see anything in the bill in the slightest degree of an unconstitutional character. It was a satisfaction to him that many English counties had adopted the provisions of the Act. The county with which he was connected was one. It was as much approved of by the rate payers as by any other portion of the community. The bill would be the cause of very great and very extensive saving. In England there were no less than 500 associations for the suppression of crime. They were supported at a very great charge, and whilst county-rates would be increased, voluntary contributions would be diminished. The ultimate effects of the bill must be the diminution of crime, and of those charges to which county-rates were now exposed. He regretted that her Majesty's Ministers had made no provision to charge part of the cost of the constabulary on the public fund.
Mr. Gisbornethought that the force to
252
be established by this bill was a good and necessary force, but he objected to the whole control being vested in the magistrates. The magistrates were to have the power of levying and expending the money, and, so far as he could see, no person could be made responsible for the manner in which it might be expended. This he thought was highly improper, and he hoped the measure would be amended, to allow of a control over the expenditure.
Sir T. Fremantledid not rise for the purpose of objecting to this measure, but he thought that it ought to be sent to a committee along with the bill of the hon. Member for Kent, in order that the two bills might be fully considered together. In the county with which he was connected he had hesitated in pressing the adoption of this measure, as he did not consider himself justified in doing so, seeing the great additional expense which would have fallen on the country by the introduction of the bill. If the old parish constables were retained, but a small additional force would be required, and to the expense of that addition he would not object. But by this bill he contended that the parish constables would be altogether abolished, and they would not be able to get the small farmers and traders to act as constables when a paid force was once introduced into the parish. The number of constables would therefore be greatly increased by the operation of this bill, and a great increase would consequently take place in the expense, and he was therefore of opinion that the old parish constables ought not to be abolished. He thought it was right that there should be an efficient police force established in the country, but, on the other hand, he thought it was equally necessary that there should be in every small community a resident policeman at the command of the magistrate, or of any person who might call for his assistance. These objects could not be attained if they abolished the parish constables without a great increase of the force, and consequently a great increase of the expense. He hoped, therefore, that this part of the subject would be fully considered in committee.
Mr. Mildmayconsidered that the change proposed by this bill was absolutely necessary, as the parish constables at present were most inefficient, they being often chosen because they were unfit for anything else.
Mr. K. Palmergave the Government every credit for wishing to make the measure satisfactory. In the county which he represented the bill of last year had not been introduced on account of the expense. He had not taken any part in the discussion, but, had he done so, he would have advised the county to wait until they had an opportunity of seeing how the bill worked in those counties which had adopted it. It was not his intention to oppose the second reading of this bill, but he thought that there was much good contained in the bill introduced by the hon. Member for West Kent, and he trusted the Government would not turn their backs on that bill. He thought that under existing circumstances the hon. Member for West Kent ought to postpone the second reading of his bill until after Easter.
Lord G. Somersetsuggested, that the present bill, together with that of the hon. Member for West Kent, ought to be referred to a select committee, and he thought that by the amalgamation of the best part of both bills a very good measure might be produced. This was not a party question, as all sides of the House must be anxious to see a good and efficient police established. He had voted for the bill of last year, and would not oppose the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Brugesthought it necessary to vindicate the magistrates of Wiltshire against the charge of having taken the county by surprise in the introduction of the Constabulary Bill. So far from that, they had adjourned the sessions for a month in order to give time for the consideration of the measure. The hon. Member for South Wilts had stated that he had opposed the introduction of this bill into the county, but he had done so in rather a singular manner, for at any of the sessions where the bill was under discussion the hon. Member had not thought fit to appear. Though there were some of the provisions of the present measure in which he did not entirely concur, yet, agreeing in the principle of the bill, it was not his intention to oppose the second reading.
Mr. Hodgessaid it was not his intention to oppose the second reading of this bill. He had fixed the second reading of his own bill for Wednesday next. He would have preferred a more distant day, but had acquiesced in the wish of the Under-Secretary of State in fixing a day for the second reading.
Mr. E. R. Ricewas favourable to the bill generally. He deprecated delay, and was anxious that the country should express an opinion on the two measures which had been proposed by the Government and the hon. Member for West Kent.
Mr. Goringwished that the country should be allowed to choose between the two plans. He hoped the hon. Member for West Kent would be permitted to go on with his bill, so that the country might be allowed to benefit by the present constabulary force, without the extraordinary expense and increase of the county-rates which the Government plan would force on them.
Mr. F. Maulewas glad to see, from the turn which the conversation had taken, that no question connected with the establishment of a constabulary force in this country could be treated as a party dispute. He did not consider this the proper time to discuss the question whether it would be better to keep the old constabulary, or to replace it by a new species of force. The present bill was not for the establishment of a new force; it was brought in for the amendment of an act passed last Session, at a period when it was universally acknowledged that the country stood in need of a well-organized police force. He had been asked to refer the bill to a select committee. He should have no objection to that, if it were an original measure; but he could not now consent to refer the whole law of the subject to a select committee, after the plan had been adopted by thirteen English counties. It was the intention of Government by the present measure to ameliorate the existing law, to render it more palatable and easy of adoption. With that view a clause had been introduced for the appointment of a special constable in certain districts, to be named by the chief constable and responsible to him, but to be paid only on the occasions when his services should be required. If the House should now read the bill a second time, he would not ask them to proceed with it immediately. He wished that the measure should go down to the magistrates at quarter-sessions, in order that he might have the benefit of any suggestions they might think proper to make. With respect to a superannuation clause, he should have no objection to it if the expense were to be charged on the public funds, but

255
they were now dealing with the county rates. He thought it would be better to leave this point to the disposal of the magistrates themselves. To all amendments that might be proposed he should be happy to give his best attention, but he could not think that any good purpose would be served by referring the bill to a select committee, and must therefore prefer a committee of the whole House.
Bill read a second time.

LAW OF EVIDENCE(SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Lord-Advocatemoved that the Speaker do leave the chair for the purpose of going into Committee on this bill.
Sir W. Raethought that a measure of this sort should not be brought in at once, but that the change should be made gradually. He had agreed to the second reading of this bill, under the impression that it had the assent of the bar generally but since that time he had received letters from judges on the bench and lawyers at the bar, which expressed a strong wish that the bill should be delayed until the subject was thoroughly investigated. He should therefore move that the Committee be postponed till that day six months.
Mr. W. Raewould oppose the bill as an entirely uncalled for, and unnecessary measure. He thought that a measure so novel in its character, and so entirely new to the feelings and prejudices of the people, should not be introduced without much consideration. He had not opposed the second reading, in the belief that it met the views of the Scottish bar, but since then he had received communications from Scotland, stating that a strong feeling existed amongst the legal profession against it, that it had been referred to a committee of the faculty of advocates, which committee rejected one clause entirely, and greatly altered the rest. Under these circumstances, and being convinced that no inconvenience whatever was experienced, he should oppose the further progress of the bill. For this purpose he begged to move, that the bill be read a second time this day six months.
The Lord-Advocatesaid, that in. his opinion the only fault the bill had, was, that it did not go far enough. It no doubt was true, as the right hon. Baronet had stated, that the bill was opposed by some members of the faculty of advocates, but he believed that the great majority of
256
that learned and enlightened body were in its favour. The object of the bill was merely to introduce into Scotland those rules of evidence which for centuries had worked so well in England, where the principles of evidence were so much better understood. The present state of the law of evidence in Scotland, would no doubt astonish many hon. Members. Would it be believed, that in Scotland no son, or father, or brother, could give any evidence in cases where their relatives were engaged? Another incongruity was, that in a case where a person was on trial for his life, his son or brother might be put in the box to give evidence, but would have the privilege of choosing whether or not he should give that evidence. These, among many other circumstances, made such a bill as the present absolutely necessary.
Mr. Home Drummondsaid, that although this bill professed to assimilate the law of evidence in Scotland to that in England, yet in many instances it failed to do so. He thought that the change, if made at all, should be complete, as otherwise it would create inextricable confusion. His strong impression was, that if the bill passed in its present form, it would be productive of much inconvenience.
The Attorney-Generalhoped, that the House would permit the bill to go into Committee, as it would introduce a great improvement in the law of Scotland. At present a father could not give evidence in favour of his son, nor was a man a competent witness in the case of his brother or sister—nay, the law went further still, and prevented uncle and nephew from giving testimony in one another's behalf. It was obvious that in many cases—such as that of an alibi for instance— rules like these must deprive a prisoner of the only evidence which the nature of the case admitted. He hoped a clause would be introduced into the bill, to enable a witness to be examined as to what he might have previously said or written on the subject on which he should be examined, which he thought would greatly tend to remove the objections of the hon. Member for Perthshire.
Amendment withdrawn, and bill went through Committee.
The report to be received to-morrow.