The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-11 00:00:00

PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS,

Sir D. WEDDERBURN moved for a select committee to
inquire into the present system of conducting public prose-
cutions in Scotland with the view of amending that
system, if necessary, and of extending to other parts of
the United Kingdom the institution of public prosecutors.
If the committee were granted he should limit his inquiry
strictly to the investigation of those particular cases of
prosecutors appointed and paid by the public to investi-
gate cases of suspected crime. There seemed at present to
be cause for inquiry and amendment in the law of Scot-
land relating to this subject. He could not see any ad-
vantage in the secret system of inquiry now adopted,
although the Lord Advocate might tell the House there
was.

Mr. MILLER thought that however admirable the system
in Scotland had been at one time, it required alteration
now. He seconded the motion.

Mr. GRIEVE supported the motion, and hoped the Lord
Advocate would give the subject his attention.
After some further discussion,

The LORD ADVOCATE said he must resist the appoint-
ment of a select committee, not because there was any-
thing in the present system of conducting public prosecu-
tions in Scotland, which he should desire to conceal, but
because that system was well-known to 'any one who .had_
taken an interest in the subject, and the means of obtain-
ing satisfactory and accurate information upon it, were
within the reach of any one who cared about the matter.
With regard to the secret system of preliminary examina-
tions, it was not part of the public prosecution system ;
it held equally as to private prosecutions, and was
a part of the criminal law of Scotland of which he would
at once say he could not approve. It was not a defensible
practice that an investigation involving issues so important
as to whether an individual should be set at liberty or
committed for trial should be made behind his back, and
that evidence taken behind his back should be kept un-
known by him.
Mr. GORDON said he quite concurred in the view taken
by the Lord Advocate, as to the inadvisability of ap-
pointing the committee. He thought it would be the
best course to adhere to a system that had hitherto
worked well. The criminal law worked ad-
mirably in Scotland, and he hoped that any
attempt to interfere with the treatment, of secret
examination of witnesses would not be made until the
matter had been well and maturely considered, because up
to the present time it had produced good, and prevented a
miscarriage of justice.
After a short discussion, the motion was negatived with-
out a division.
EAST INDIA OPIUM REVENUE.

Sir WILFRID LAWSON then rose to move the following
resolution :—" That this House condemns the system by
which a large portion of the Indian revenue is raised
from opium." The hon. baronet said he was induced
to bring the subject forward in consequence of a chal-
lenge that had been thrown out when the Indian budget
was last under diseussion, and further because he thought
that that which was morally wrong could not be
politically right. The subject under the attention of the
House had not been before it for twenty-seven years, dur-
ing which time there had been great changes in the
government of the country ; they had a new Parliament,
elected on a new franchise, and he thought they might
take a very different view of the matter to that
which had hitherto existed. The hon. baronet then
proceeded to detail the pernicious effects produced
by the consumption of the opium prepared and
sold by the Indian Government, and also to read extracts
from the opinions of Sir B. Brodie, Mr. Marjoribanks,
Mr. Montgomery Martin, and others, all of whom testi-
fied to the fatal effects produced by the use of opium, and
dwelt strongly on that of a native writer, who said it was
not the man consuming the opium, but the opium con-
suming the man. It was said, remarked the hon. member,
that the opium trade was no worse than the spirit trade at
home. He was not competent to judge on that point : he
had seen the horrors of the drink traffic at home. Two
blacks did not make a white. He then pointed out that
the Government themselves were the dealers in opium ;
they grew it and sold it to the highest bidder. He strongly
condemned the policy which had been pursued by the
country with regard to the opium trade in China, and said
so much misery as it produced could not be justified on
fiscal grounds.
Mr. ROBERT FOWLER seconded the motion, and main-
tained that the evils produced by the use of opium were
greater than that produced by wines and spirits, fearful as
the latter were. The action of the Government in refe-
rence to the two trades was entirely distinct. By imposing
duties upon spirits they restricted their consumption, but
the whole policy of the Government had been to do every-
thing in its power jto increase the consumption of opium
among the Chinese. The hon. gentleman said that some
of the most fertile lands in India were devoted to
the cultivation of opium, and Government had as-
sisted the cultivation by every means in its power. Ha
went on to show that the consumption of opium in India
was productive of great demoralisation. He quoted several
passages from authorities on the subject in support of his
argument. He incidentally alluded to the famine in India,
and suggested that the Government were to a considerable
extent responsible by continuing to appropriate such large
tracts of land to the cultivation of opium. He asked
whether it were consistent to go to a country with the
Bible in one hand and a poisonous drug in another.
Sir CHARLES WINGFIELD said it was just as immoral
to raise revenue from opium grown spontaneously by the
people as from opium grown by the Government. There-
fore it should be clearly understood that the condemna-
tion of the opium trade on moral grounds involved the
suppression of the cultivation of the article and the re-
linquishment of all revenue from so impure a source. But
were they bound by the dictates of morality to withhold
opium from the Chinese ? He ventured to think that
neither the Chinese Government nor the people thought
so. He contended that the moderate use of opium was
not more injurious than the moderate use of alcoholic
drinks.

Mr. MACARTHUR expressed his opinion that the coun-
try were indebted to the hon. member who had brought
forward the motion. The hon. gentleman who had just
sat down had said that there was no opposition to the
opium traffic in China ; but according to the authority of
distinguished men throughout all China there was the
greatest opposition to the trade. He believed the revenue
from opium would decline more and more, and also be-
lieved that the traffic in the poisonous drug was injurious
not only to our connection with China, but our Indian
empire, and was exercising a most pernicious influence
upon the resources of that country. It was the mission