The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-08 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 8, 1847.

of the charges spinet his honor and prints character, so that
he might have en opportunity et being placed with regard to
his defence in the same palatal= ea the meanest criminal was
entitled to. He went on to say that since his arrival in that
es=the same system of detraction had been pursued
him as towards his predecessor, but that the dander
Von had not prevailed, but had been met with • universal
denial. He then alluded to the paragraphin the Naval and
Military Gazette, and the letter which hid been written to
the editor with regard to its falsehood. He had laid Mr.
Gladstone's letter of 30th April before the legislative
council, for the purpose of inquiry. He then recapitu-
lated the circumstances under winch he took the office,
that he had resigned his seat in parliament
for Warwickshire, for which he had gone through three
contests, as wall as the chairmanship of the Quarter Sessions,
which he had filled for t rainy yearn with an unblemished
reputation ; that he bad separated from his wife and family,
hoping for six years of office, but at the sad of three years,
at twenty days' notice, he had been deprived of income, as
well as any prospect of office under the crown.] That wu
the letter which bad been lent by Sir E. Wilmot, and he
(11r. Spooner) thought it was worthy of him—worthy
of an honest and injured man—who claimed to be
acquitted of the charges which were made against
him. He referred the matter to the executive council, and
they appointed a committee of inquiry to report upon it.
They entered on the investigation, but knowing. not what to
inquire about, they could not enter on any investigation
which was productive of real benefit. The mimed, in
alluding to the calumny in the Naval and Military Gazette,
stated their opinion that it was refuted, and mentioned that
the Bishop of Tasmania, who would shortly be in England,
would bear testimony to the conduct of Sir E. Wilmot in the
colony, and so could Bishop Wilson, the Roman catholic
bishop. They were also unanimously of opinion that
it was expedient to refer the question to a committee.
That committee had reported, that though they had a diffi-
culty, in consequence of having no definite charges to which
to direct their inquiries, and, therefore that the investiga-
tion proposedwas impracticable, they still deemed it due to
Sir Euffley Wilmot to certify, in the most explicit terms,
that, as far as their own observation had gone during their
private and official intercourse with him, nothing bad
transpired to justify the imputation that he bad been guilty
assay violation 0( the decencies of private life. Thie report
had been transmitted to the late Secretary of State (Mr.
Oladstone),l together with an address presented to Sir Bard-
ley Wilmot, on the occasion of his recall by the inhabitants of
Van Diemen 's Land. In that address, which was
signed by every official person who had been do
the constant habit of communication with the late ,
and by three hundred and forty of the most r Wm-
bitanta of Hobart Town, it was stated "that they deensiall ft
their duty to express their unqualified contradiction of Ito
reports which had been circulated injurious to the Me
governor's character." After reading some further wee-
spondenos which has already been published, Mr. Spoonm
to ed observe that the present Sir Eardley Wilmot
since received from Mr. Gladstone a letter, dated Bag-
ley, 31st May last, which stated that in his opinion the
eantrediction which the address presented to his late Wine
by the inhabitants of Van Diemen's Land gave to eertala
re its affecting the personal character of the late Sir E.
Wilmot, was more than sufficient to remove whatever pre-
judices
those reports were calculated to raise. " I have
said," continued the writer, " more than sufficient, because
I apprehend the acquittal of a few persons of education and
station in the colony would have been enough, but I find, in
addition to these, almost every resident is a subscriber to the
address. About a fortnight ago, I acquainted Earl Grey
that I thought the subscriptions to the address corresponded
with the account the late Sir E. Wilmot had given of them,
and I will merely add, that you are at liberty to make any
use you may think fit of this letter." So that, at the hands
of the public aced of the late Secretary for the Colonies, there
had been a fall and complete acquittal of the late Sir E.
Wilmot from the infamous charges which had been so wan-
tonly cast upon him. (Hear, hear.) But he (Mr. Spooner)
did not rest his case here. He had a letter from the Bishop
of Tasmania, who happened to be in this country, in answer
to one addressed to his lordship by Mr. Harry Chewer, the
brother of Lady Wilmot. In that letter the bishop declared
that, restricted u his intercourse had been with the late Sir
E. Wilmot, still he could positively declare, from We own
knowledge, that the injurious statements sate his and, IMO
utterly groundless. The biahop added, "that greatinjudeshei
been done to Sir E. Wilmot in this respect ; and I stabs 161 b
not as au intimate friend or acquaintance of Sir E. Wilmot,
but as the testimony of one who simply wishes to act on the
principle of christian feeling." (Hear, hear.) Skean
testimony was borne in a letter which had been put tabs fie
hands that morning from the Roman Catholic Wallop of
Tasmania, Dr. Wilson ; and further, the Colonial Treasurer,
in a letter addressedto the present Sir E. Wilmot, declared
that the gran calumnies which had taken effect in this
country were not entertained for one moment in Van
Diemen's Land. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Spooner) thought
that, so far u vindication of the late Sir E. Wilmot's cha-
racter was concerned, he had fulfilled his painful and diffi-
cult task; and he thought on this testimony that he bad
shown that the lamented deceased had been seriously injured
and most scandalously used. (Hear, hear.) He trusted,
however, that he should elicit from the hon. gentleman, the
Under-Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Hawes) the expres-
sion on behalf of the government of their entire ac-
quiescence in the views contained in the last letter of Mr.
Gladstone. At present he could not but condemn the cold-
ness which characterised the letters addressed both by Earl
Grey and the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Hawes) to the late
and present Sir E. Wilmot in relation to this heartrending case.
In conclusion, he thanked the house for their attention, and
said that had the case required ingenuity, argument, car
eloquence, he would not have undertaken it, but all it
needed was a plain unvarnished statement of facts.
Lent BROOKE said that to the full and clear statement
of his hon, friend he had nothing to add ; but es a tosmhar bas
the county with whichthe late Sir E. Wilmot eras
he wished testify his concurrence in the statements= to
been made. An unfounded private charge hinter been
made against the deceased baronet, it was doe be IldiMmes
that the noble Secretary for the Colonies abaddi slept the
acquittal, as well as the accusation, of his
Mr. W. S. DUGDALE said, he had the
against Sir E. Wilmot whispered in various quarters ; bat
after the statement of his hon. friend (Mr. Spooner) every
one in the country must be satisfied that these reports were
false. (Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said, he had been acquainted with the late
Sir E. Wilmot, had been one of his constituents, and had
had the opportunity of knowing how he had discharged his
duties as representative of the county of Warwick. He well
recollected the circtunitances by which his noble friend

(Lord Kianley) had been infiumiced in making the appoint-
ment, which, under the circumstances of the colony, was a
matter of no small importance. He was unwilling to select
for that office a military gentleman ; and his sole motive for
selecting Sir E. Wilmot was the conviction that, from that
gentleman's experience in the administration of the law as
chairman of the Quarter Sessions in the county of Warwick,
and from the attention which he had directed, as a member of
that house, to the impr lvement of the criminal law, it would be
difficult to procure a civilian more eminently qualified for
the government of that colony. (Rear, hear.) All that he
(Sir R. Peel) bad heard of the private character of Sir E.
Wilmot, justified the selection then made. Of the
feelings of Mr. Gladstone, with respect to his removal, he
was fully aware. The hon. member for Birmingham had
most properly and becomingly declined to enter into the
public grounds of his removal; such discussions were unit-
fuel. His right hon. friend, Mr. Gladstone, had distinctly
admitted in writing to Sir E. Wilmot, that he did not advise
him withdrawal from the colony on account even of any pub-
lic disqualification or neglect which would justify his with-
drawal, but, such was the peculiar position of the colony,
that the pretty general tenor of the despatches from Sir E.
Wiltnotannuffied him in advising the crown to the appoint-
ment of assmemor. But there had been a distinct admission
on the part d Kr. Gladstone, that the causes which, in his
opinion, *died the removal of Sir E. Wilmot, were not
such at hail prevent his being engaged again in the ser-
vice of the meths. (Hear.) So far, therefore, as concerned
hiszrynablic chareeter, his capacity for the performance of the
iw feselless of a governor, Mr. Gladstone's despatch
blea. But Mr. Gladstone had been placed in
a most pm/sr ami embarrassing situation by the informa-
tion he bed reseiveL Three persons, whose private eh&
meter wee messeoptionable, who were in communication
with the gevenemou, acting entirely independently of each
other, had theirseed the rumours which had reached others,
which had evidently been spread in the colony of New
South Wake; they the Colonialofilee that the
privies Nth elf* Z. Wilmot was such as to prevent the pro-
Makers' of the duties of his office. But his removal had
ton Om ups =tly distinct grounds; those private
llsl reasse aft eed Mr. Gladstone in his advice to
Mane man enhjeet. What course was Mr. Gladstone
to under the circumstances? His natural course
taedi ben boa le advise Sr E. Wilmot's withdrawal ; at
the NM dam, he bed not thought it consistent with his
duty fa eppotnt btu fa another colony, unless there was a
ratielfeast y refutation of the dunes that had been made
Wades his primes dtmestia • sad this fact was communi-
toted to Sir E. Wilma k a ISOM dmpatch. Mr. Gledleteme
had reasoned that thihrmatiee based upon general rumen
should this circulated • sedan oppliserion had bees made
to one aka gentlemen dire/tefesea the amyl kid bka
conveyed to the Colonial , to per the use of
his name and of the papers in whisk if was contained, I
but that application was distinctly refused. (Hear, hear.)
The two other names had been furnished to the son of Sir
E. Wilmot, to enable him to ascertain the truth of their
statement. But he wished to state, in the firmest and
strongest manner, on the part of his right hon. friend Mr.
Gladatene, his conviction that the information he bar se•
ceived wee totally and entirely erroneous. (Neer, bar.)
The son of Sir E. 'Wilmot was entitled at his hands te the
most complete and explicit admission that the charges made
against his father's character were without foundation
totally and entirely false (hear, hear); and this statement an
the part of his right honourable friend was the most
satisfactory one that could be made. He (Sir H,
Peel) would also express his opinion—Am beming Sir Z.
Wilmot's statement in vindication of his dreamer • and
looking at the nature of the charges and the characier et
those who made them—that the dumps must be considered
as being totally sod utterly without foundatim. (Hear,
hear.) This he should have felt it his duty to de, as OW
netted with the government of which Mr. Gladstone had
been a member ; but his own feelings towards the late Sr B.
Wilmot, and hisacquaintance with him in private life, caused
him to shire in the sympathy which had been so becomingly
expressed for the feelings of his widow and family. He had
had communication with the immediate representative of
Sir E. Wilmot,—his son; and had never been more
strongly impressed in favour of any one placed in
such a situation. (Hear, hear.) He had felt it
an act of justice towards the memory of Sir E. Wilmot to
express his conviction of the total want of foundation for
those charges. (Hoar, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that, after the declaration which
had just been made, as to Mr. Oladatoneh total disbelief of
those charges, he should have felt it unnecessary to say a

single word, had not the hon. member for Birmingham, to
his great surmise, thought fit to question the conduct of
Earl Grey in this matter. (Hear, hear.) With recent eves
to the substance of the charge, the names of the aceusere,
and the eridence which they had given, Earl Grey was en-
tirely ignorant. (Hear.) lie had been informed that there
wan as accusation affecting the private character of
Sir E. Wilmot; what that accusation was he had not
brought. How, then, could he pretend to give an opinion,
been informed, nor who were the persons by whom it wee
or add to the weight of any authority in vindicatioa of Sir
E. Wilmot, by declaring those charges to be entirely without
foundation? It was evident he was without the means of
judging of those charges; the only thing he could say was,
that they had been brought under the notice of Mr. Glad •
stone, bat that he had no knowledge and could give no
opinion about them. (Hear.) Though Mr. Gladstone had
made the accusation the subject of a secret despatch,
he had not recorded that despatch in the Colonial-
office, which had, therefore, no more value than one
of his private letters. The noble lord, the member for
Warwick, seemed to think that Earl Grey had adopted
these charges, because be had declared that he should
net think it his duty to advise her Majesty to re-ap-
point Sir E. Wilmot to some other colony. He would say
most distinctly that his noble friend's (Lord Grey's) ground
forth& was his general estimate of the public conduct of Sir
E. Wilmot; his opinion of his qualifications, as compared
with those of others, for the government of a colony, and had
no reference whatever to the charges affecting his private
character. He put those charges entirely out of view, and
having done so, it was his duty and privilege to select those
whom he thought most fit for the office. Lord Stanley,
in the exercise of that privilege, had appointed Sir E.
Wilmot, and not a word could be said against that.
But the noble lord now at the head of the colonial
department was not to be told, because certain charges
against as individual had been reported to his predecessor,
and afterwards admitted to be unfounded, that therefore he
was bound, irrespective of all other considerations, to recom-
mend a colonial government to be placed at the disposal of
that person. The hon. member for Birmingham must see,
on consideration, that Lord Grey was not bound to make
any such selection. (Hear, hear.) The whole of his pro-
ceedings, the letter he had written, were founded on public
views and public considerations, in which he might be right
or wrong; but they had no reference whatever to these
charges. He would express no opinioa as to the part
taken by Mr. Gladstone ; the decision of such ques-
tions was a painful part of the duty of •
colonial secretary ; Mr. Gladstone beet knew who were the
persons who brought these charges, and whether they were
entitled to belief m the first instance ; but it now turned out
that he had formed an erroneous estimate of the value of the
authority. (Hear, hear.) One of the accusers, it seemed,
was not willing that his name should be communicated to
the accused ; the authority of the other two was not entitled
to much respect ; and it was now admitted that all the
imputations were false. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the hon.
gentleman who had brought forward this question, and the
friends of Sir E. Wilmot, would consider that these charges
had been swept to the winds, and that the son of the de-
ceased baronet would rest satisfied that he had no dishonour-
able inheritance. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. SPOONER, in explanation, said he had complained
that the present colonial secretary had refused to recommend
her Majesty to give the deceased baronet an opportunity of
clearing his character.
Mr. V. SMITH said the noble lord now at the head of the
colonial department was perfectly blameless; the whole
blame must rest on Mr. Gladstone. The manner with which
a secretary of state dealt with the character of public ser-
vants was a public concern; it was his duty to protect them
till the last moment, and not lightly give ear to accusations
against them. It seemed Mr. Gladstone had not had per-
sonal communication with the three parties who preferred
the charges. One of these had refused to allow his
name to be made public ; ought not then Mr. Gladstone im•
mediately to have dismissed the charge? (Hear, hear.)
The statement of the right hon. baronet (Sir R. Peel) was
inconsistent with Mr. Gladstone's letter, in which the charges
were described as resting on vague rumour, and being un-
supported by names. Instead of communicating the charges
to Sir E. Wilmot, as he was clearly bound to do before acting
upon them, Mr. Gladstone bad declined to re-appoint him,
and had written a letter which was not only uncalled for but
unbecoming a person in the high position of colonial secre-
tary. Such conduct, more than anything else, was likely to
deter bon. gentlemen from undertaking the government of
colonies. (Hear, hear.) lie admitted that Mr. Gladstone
had since done everything in his power to allay the feelings
which he thus had excited in the minds of Sir E. Wilmot
and his friends ; and he contended that there was no ground
whatever to attribute any blame to Earl Grey.
Mr. NEWDEGATE could state that no man stood higher
in the county which he (Mr. Newdegate) had the honour to
represent than the late Sir E. Wilmot. (Hear, hear.) One
point, too, on which he wished to be satisfied was this: he (ap-
posed that some documents had been furnished to the Colo-
nial-office, having reference to the accusations against the
deceased baronet. Now that those accusations hal been
proved to be perfectly groundless, he trusted that such docu-
ments, if any existed, would be either given up or destroyed.
Sir J. GRAHAM had hoped that, after the speech made
by the late head of the government, as well as that of
the present First Lord of the Treasury, the feel-
ings of every one who was interested in the case
of the late Sir E. Wilmot would have been perfectly satis-
fied. He was rejoiced to find that on all sides of the house
it was admitted distinctly that the explanations which had
been received from the colony, and from persons best ena-
bled to form a correct judgment, had completely removed
every taint and even shadow of suspicion from the memory
qf the deceased baronet. (Hear, hear.) With respect to
the censure which had been cast on Lord Grey in the course
of that debate, he must say that he thought the vindi-
cation of that noble lord's conduct by the members of
government in that house was perfectly satisfactory. As to
letters or documents, he was sure that the hon. under
for the colonies could assure the hon. member for
Weenie hire that not • vestige of any thing of the kind re-
mained in the Colonial-office. The only question that re
mained requiring comment from him, was the conduct of
Mr. Gladstone. It had been said—first, that the secret letter
written by that gentleman was injudiciously and wantonly
written ; secondly, that he had acted on insinuated and ano-
nymous accusations. Now, the accusations were neither in-
sinuated nor anonymous. (" Name.") Two of the accu-
sers were gentlemen at present residing in Van Diemen's
Land, one holding a high official position, and the other
high; though not officiaLitation in the colony. With respect
to the third, he held high official station in this
country, and when called upon to allow his name to be used
he shrunk from the avowal. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, he
admitted that anythinr that gentleman had stated must be
at once discarded. The others had made such positive
statements that the Secretary of State could not mighty
have overlooked them. What then was Mr. Gladstone a
offence ? It was not contended that Sir E. Wilmot's recall
might not have been justifiable on public grounds; but Mr.
Gladstone was blamed because he did not think it would be
for the advantage of the public service to retain him in kis
then position. Mr. Gladstone wrote his private letter with
a view of giving Sir E. Wilmot an opportunity
of removing the imputations from his private character,
ea as that ho might be eligible for some other government
appointment. He (Sir I. Graham) must think that Mr.
Gladstone had acted fairly and frankly in accompanying his
despatch of recall with • private letter stating the charges
which had come to his ears, and thus giving the party
accused an opportunity of clearing his reputation.
Mr. HAWES said that there was not in the colonial
office the slightest vestige of a document accusatory of Sir E
Wilmot. Even the secret letter alluded to was not known
to be in existenes at the Callasialwace until it was received
in a dullard four Sir B. Wart himself. He had only
further to op, that the coconuts which had been trans-
mitted teas file colonies had Turned from his mind every
trees at roe seammtions on whisk Mr. Gladstone's letter
had boaa fronslad. (Cheers.) He did not wish to cast
blare as that gurdesaan, but he could not hold him quite
justified in the erne he had taken.
Sir C. DOUGLAS said that, after what had occurred, he
had reason to hailer that th• debate wield be perfectly
satisfactory to the distorts of the stressall barer& (Hear.)
Mr. CUATRIS had as hasitrioareeisporkiag the accu-
sers of Sir B. Wilmot, whatever might be their rank, r base
and cowardly ashwarators. (Hear, bear.)
Mr. BORTHWICK exonerated Lord Grey from blame in
the matter, but was not quite satisfied with the conduct of
Mr. Gladstone.

Mr. RORSMAN said it had been stated that two of the
Peewees of Sir E. Wilmot held official appointments. He
wished to know, first, whether the hon. member forßirming-
ham had been furnished with the names of the colonial ac-
cusers ; and, secondly, whether any steps had been taken at
the Colonial Office to communicate with the gentlemen hold-
ing high official position in this country, in ceder that he I
aught explain how he had become a party to the transaction ?
Mr. SPOONER had beea furnished with two of the names;
the other was still unknown to him,
Mr. HORSMAN—Perhaps the right hon. member furDor-
chaster could give the third name ?
Capt. GLADSTONE denied that his right hon, relative
had committed any error or indiscretion in the matter.
His right hon. friend regretted that the charge had aver
been made ; but his justification rested on the evidence and
on the position of the parties who had nada the accusation.
(Hear, hear.) If his right hon. relative wrote the letter on
insufficient grounds, no doubt he had been guilty of worm
than a mere indiscretion, but he repeated he was Justified by
the circumstances of the case. His right hon. relative and
those who defended him in that house were under a great
difficulty in not being able to give the names of the parties
by whom the &ergot were made—( Why not ?)—for if hon.
members knew who those parties were, they would see that
it would have been impossible for his right hon. relative to
pass such charges by without calling for some explanation.
Mr. ROEBUCK was anxious for the character of England
in this matter. The hon. member for Ipswich said that if
the house knew who the parties were by whom those charges
had been made, they would understand how difficult it
would have been for his right hon. relative to refuse to take
cognisance of them. Now he had no idea of official reserve
when the character of an honest man was at stake. (Hear,
hear.) It appeared that those respectable names had been
vouchers for falsehood. What were the facts ? A most
respectable gentleman went sut to govern a distant
colony, and performed his duty honestly, and to the
best of his ability ; but behind his back some respectable
gentlemen, officially connected, addressed the colonial secre-
tary in aocusation of the absent governor, and he was dis-
missed, and that without any intimation of what the charges
were. The right hon. gentleman had not the courage to
make the accusation, though sheltered by his official position
—he ventured upon it to dismiss an honest man. (Hear.)
He must assume the accusation was a grave one, or it would
not, in the colonial secretary's view, have justified tlismissal.
That accusation was now admitted to be Pulse ; why, then,
were they not to know who the parties were who made it ?
(Hear.) What right had Mr. Gladstone to dismiss a man:on
charges anonymously made, and which afterwards-turned out
to be unfounded?

Capt. GLADSTONE—He did not dismal him on tilos

—Mr. ROEBUCK—Then he dismissed him on no ace
tion. (Hear.l What was he dismissed for ? It was era,
be was dismissed ; and he was told that he would not be
yp
recommended to official employment, because he had been
accused of certain immoral conduct. That was du statement
sooordint to the papers which had been producen. (Hass.)
But he d not believe it. He believed the colonial semi.'
wished to dismiss Sir E. Wilmot, and finding these
mons accusations at that moment in the office, he red them
as his instruments. (No, no.) He would take the case the
other way, and assert that Sir E. Wilmot was not &miaow,
heintme he use able to govern the colony,_ but is roe
segesoss if dim charges. (Hear, hear.) They mold Set
eat ef that affinity only by giving up the dateo of the as„
mations, and hy proving that they were subsequent to the
' date of the dimodeml. (Hear.) The miananageount of
Gladstone and Lord Stanley na the conduct of the affairs,"
the colonies was proverbial—no sooner did either of the"
put their hands to anything connected with colonied einem
merit than the consequences of a mischievous interfernme
resulting from ignorance and presumption, immel;atele fah
lowed. Sir E. Wilmot was not a solitary victim of •,reolotti,d
misrule—there was scarcely a colony to which E,...41ad hod
extended her rule in which the mischievous remit, of au ir-
responsible colonial government were not ape :rent. He
hoped ere long to see the time when the colonial ,liplettoot
would he made responsible.
Mr. 0. W. HOPE believed that the public grounds which
were referred to in the papers, and which had nothing to do
with private character, fully justified the ret..ll of Si,
E. Wilmot. That recall had been received by the noble
lord who succeeded Mr. Gladstone, and by him the peke
grounds were held to be a sufficient justification for the
course which had been adopted. The charges ninth hod
'seen made against Sir E. Wilmot's private character had
been communicated to that gentleman in a spirit ~,f faience
and justice in order that he might answer and refute them,
Mr. B. ESCOTT concurred with his hon. and learned
friend that the real question to be considered, was the public
one. It was evident that Sir E. Wilmot had been designed
on the ground stated in the secret despatch, but the bon.
gentleman would not give dates, and they knew not when
the intelligence reached Mr. Gladstone on which he acted.
But they found that the date of the public despetchirecallnig
Sir E. Wilmot was 30th April, 1846, and the private des
patch communicating the calumny to Sir E. Wilmot, bore
the same date. Would any one believe that lir. Olvlstoas bad
not the charges before hies when he wrote the recall?
Why he made the charge the ground of the heaviest part of
Sir E. Wilmot's punishment. But the part of the eam
which ought to attract the attention of the representatives of
England was one which he could have desired the preeeat
under secretary (Mr. B. Hawes) had ant sluiced oety,
(Hear, hear.) The question was, were the ecdoi.es to be
governed by ministers who listened to anonymous scam.
Lions. (Hear, hear.) Why were the names of these three
calumniators concealed ? As a member of that hoax he did
protest against endeavours to shield such persons merely to
protect a former minister.
Sir W. JAMES could sot allow such language .a that of
the hon. member to pus unnoticed. Did be mean to apply
the word " calumnious" to Mr. Gladstone ? Mr.
' had done no more than his duty, and the course h, aid em..
sued was sanctioned by the authority of Earl 'rho
charge now urged against him was not urged by ti,' melon
who opened the debate it was only made at th,.. eleventh
hour by gentlemen who had heard little of what hod pima,
and who knew nothing, and were utterly unable to appre-
ciate the difficulties of Mr. Gladstone's position. For his
ownepart he believed his right hon. friend had ouly dole
what was right, and had done it in the kindest was.
Mr. M. MILNES hoped he would not allow an esti,
friendship for Mr. Gladstone to bias his judgment is each
matter as that before them ; but he must °lndite,. say that
he thought Mr. Gladstone's motives had been.ininater-
preted by recent speakers. His . object in writing the sentdespatch was to make Sir E. Wilmot acquainted with the
charges which were brought against him in th;,
These rumours were circulated in various circles iu England;
and that was the kindliest act Mr. Gladstone could possibly
do, to give Sir Eardley an opportunity of justify hie himself
in the eyes of his friends at home. At the same time, how-
ever, that he felt confident Mr. Gladstone had act, .1 in this
instance from the purest motives, he did feel very so ongly hew
desirable it was that ministers of the crown shoal ..arefully
avoid to receive and act upon anonymous calumbes. If
such a course as that were persisted in, the conequenee
must be to deprive the country of the services of the best
servants of the crown. But the present case uould, he
trusted, be a warning to future colonial ministers.
Sir R. H. INGLIS regretted the altered tone this debate
had assumed. It commenced in a tone of entree—it had
assumed the tone of anger. He wished it had nee, r lon its
original character, and he would conclude it by ...preens'.
his unfeigned joy that Sir Eardley Wilmot's reputation had
been so completely vindicated.
The motion " that the orders of the day be new read,"
was then put and carried.
REGISTERING BIRTHS, &c. (SCOTLAND, BILL.
MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The LORD ADVOCATE rose to move that these bills
be committed that day three months, for the purpose of
explaining the grounds upon which he had brought them
forward. It could not be denied that a full and romplete
system of registering births; deaths, and marriages was im-
portant to Scotland as well as England, in not only furnish-
ing most useful statistical information, but important also as
regarded the interests of families and individuals. In consider.
ing the subject it was impossible to overlook the fact that such
a system had prevailed in England for ten years and that
system he had thought it advisable to apply to Scotland, by
establishing a department in Edinburgh, as in London,
where the whole system might be concentrated for the pur-
poses of reference, and by district registries placed under
local superintendence. In these respects he propos,' to fol-
low the analogy of the English system. With regard to the
expense, which was the origin of meet of the objections
which had been raised against these bills, he hal only to
say that on communicating with the Chancellor of the Et-
chequer he had told him that there should be done for Scot.
land what was done for England, but not more—namely,
that part should be paid by the public( treasury, but that the
rest should be met by local taxation, the expenses paid nut
of the public treasury in England being those connected
with the central department in London awl fors-tenon, ry. The
fees paid in the case of marriages would prevent the neces-
sity of having recourse to either of these sources; so that
the only expenses to be defrayed by local taxation wi re those
which would be incurred for the registering of births and
deaths. Now according to the sixth report of the registrar-
general of England, upon an average of years from 1838 to
1846, there was for every 31 of the population, ens birth;
and for every 45, one death. Assuming it to be the same in
Scotland, and assuming the population of Scotland to be
3,000,000, they would have of births about 96,700. and of
deaths, 66,600,--the whole expense of registering which he
had calculated would not exceed 9,600?. a year. Out of 900
parishes, there were 268 in which the population was
under 1,000, and in these the expense would not exceed
3f. 10s. for each parish; there were 275 parishes, basin a
population of between 1,000 and 2,000, upon which the
expense would be 61. 108., and 217 parishes with a popula-
tion between 2,000 and 4,000, in which the expense might
reach 91. each per annum. The expense of registering in
towns would, of course, be heavier, but these 760 parishes
contained nearly one half the population of the country.
Then as to the manner in which that expense was to be
met. If he had proposed to put it on real property, the
country gentlemen would have objected, and asked why
personal property should be „excluded while there acre no
means of assessing personal property in Scotland. On the
whole, then, he had thought it the cheapest, moot conve-
nient, and the faired course to follow the English plan of
meeting these expenses by an samsament through the poor:
rate, the machinery of which was already in existence. sad
with the administration of which regietration waa intimately

connected. It had been objected that this plan would crests
confusion ; but the two assessments could be kept quite
clear and distinct by separate accounts. The clause etclu-
ding schoolmasters being appointed registrars had also bus
objected to ; but his reason for inserting it was, that they
had already too many duties to attend to, 600 of theta Mug
occupied as motions clerks and 423 as inspectors of primes.
He had found one schoolmaster who performed the dates of
seven other offices, and it followed that whoa so many duties
were imposed on one person some of them must be neglected.
It was said that there were registers kept at present ID Foxe-
land. So, also there were in England previous to the pass-
ing of the English Registration Act ; but that was no reason
in either cue why a more efficient systems should not be
established. Closely connected with the subject of registra-
tion was the law of marriage. The law of Scotland required
nothing but the comsat of the parties to constitute
marriage. Than was no need of the content of
parents or guirdiaus, nor was there any new
any for the biairmation of ministers of relMioa.
The fact of marelap was often spelt out:from common repo:
tation is LM neighbourhood, and the question was decided
on whims so vague that the dodges trembled when they
morannewil their decision. He would mention one or two
said by way of illustration. A gentleman who afterwards
ems to inherit a high title and princely estates contracted
sneaky, in 1803 solely by writing, imagining that it would
not be preserved, whereas it had, in fact, been cow'
fully preserved. Tkat gentleman came to England is
1808 and being a man in that respect of no honours
and possibly imagining that the evidenee of his former mar-
riage was loot, he paid his addresses to a lady connected with
one of the first families in England. Those addresses were
received, and a marriage took place. Fortunately there was
no issue ; but a suit was brougnt in the English courts, and
the result was that the second marriage was annulled IS
favour of the first. Again, a gentleman having lived with*
woman for some years, who was his domestic, and received
wages from him, and who had also had chldren by Mar
called up this woman, his servants, and his chil-
dren, and said in the presence of them ell, of
clergyman being present, I acknowledge thtl
WOE= to be my wife, and these children to be my .'
It was not proved that this woman made any similarMOM de-
claration. The gentleman then left the room and went shout
his occupation, and gave directions to his overseer Es
returned in a short time, and shot himself dead. The fuss
question which arose in the courts was as to the insaaity_of
Hie man. It was proved that he was perfectly MM.
next question was, whether the marriage was valid ; and
that question turned upon another, viz., whether the gentle-
man meant to marry and live with the woman, or shah"'
he merely meant to marry her and make her a widow,
order that the children might inherit the estate. The qua-
Lion was argued at great length. Ultimately the roamer
was decided to be good, and the children were now in pot'
anion ef an estate of more than 20,0001. • year. 11,
believed there was no country in christendom, or is
the civilised world, in which the law of los,'
Hags was so absolutely unjustifiable as in Scotland.
The statute law of Scotland was said to give encourage'
meat to marriages by the clergy ; but the reverse wet
s
hot, for if any religious celebration was performed, 'me°
thine was what was called a proclamation of banns, the cler-
gyman performing the ceremony was liable to er:"l"titi".

ewe the state f the law of marriage in Scotland was
It Eo. wut he proposed was, that marriages performed
rdere ofvaro-usdenomisations should remain as they
hat respeeting otheemodes ef marriage, that if they
..weetro; 0, =meet clergymen they must be
tag the arse of jeers and quaker', he
forms of marriages in Scotland to two, those be-
Ileta, clergyman and thou before the registrar. It was
rciiii,e4 that persons married by the registrar should
rosikat ia the datriet for a certain time, as at would tend
.7 thole the barn and precipitancy of marriages. The
;de to the the
was to he equivalent te proclamation
W
kr the purpose of a outrage before the clergy.
hf Be bad brought forward the bills now merely with
selL
the sow of stating their object, and postponing them till
onion. and the interval he would employ m
etetfaspovemeet and amendment in them that he could.
igagORBBS said that he and those other members from
soma who opposed the present bills only represented the
.agags of the peseta of Scotland. If the people of Scotland
;pin femur of the bills, why were there no r 'Sitio= from
jot. tkit effect They objected to the bill for the intr.
Yloes artjar 9, in the first place, because it created
Val sew Avert They also objected to the bill, because it
eruct any ,chop aster from being a registrar. There
d&WI in the bill which was very much complained of
sodas& wady, a clause compelling persons, under a
realty, who were present at a birth, to give in-
tass before a certain time. A man who married was
Joe obliged under a fine to go to the registrar, and as he
boa to Pays fee to the registrar, it would operate as
Nrri, marriage, These were some of the reasons which
iswed the people of Sootland almost universally to oppose
bill, and he *.herefore hoped it would not be forced
tritium. The motion was then agreed to.
PRISONS BILL.—ADJOURNED DEBATE,
le mower to a question by Mr. NEW DECIATE,
Su O. GREY said that be would fix Thursday for the
aajsented debate.
)tr. BANKES said that the debate on Portugal was
east for Thursday.
gje O. GRBY .aid as that was the earliest day on which
the adjourned debate could come on, in any case it was
Enter to flu it for that day.
RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
Cot SIBTHOUP called attention' to the railway &trio.
delltl whisk had recently occurred, and thought an inquiry
el& to he made into their causes.
jr UCDSON said that railway directors lamented such
*Skits u much as any men could do, and would be very
sad to bear of any suggestion by which they might be
likely to be prevented.
The hum then adjourned at 20 minutes past 12 o'clock.