LAW OF EVIDENCE(SCOTLAND) BILL. (Hansard, 30 March 1840)

The Lord-Advocate
moved that the Speaker do leave the chair for the purpose of going into Committee on this bill.

§ Sir W. Rae
thought 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. Rae
would 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-Advocate
said, 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 Drummond
said, 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-General
hoped, 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.