The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDOM WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 16, 1858.

Mr. FITZROY then moved that the 52d George 111.,
chap. 144, be read.
Sir D. LE MARCHANT read the section of the act re-
ferred to, relative to the right of members to sit and
vote in that House after becoming bankrupt.
Mr. FITZROY next moved that Mr. J. Townsend,
a member of that house, having been declared a bank•
rupt, he was incapable of sitting and voting.
Mr. TOWNSEND considered it was his duty towards
his constituent% himself, and the house that he should
offer a few observations in explanation of the votes he
bad given on several late occasions and the reasons for
retaining his seat. Since he bad bad a seat in that
house he had endeavoured to conform to the rules and
regulations. He had never, in a single instaace, thrust
himself on the society of any hon. member, and if
he had erred in taking his seat and voting since
the adjudication, he had done so in ignorance,
and not in defiance of the rules of that house. It was
perfectly true that an adjudication in bankruptcy had
been filed against him in consequence of heavy chan-
cery proceedings over which he had no control, and
the persecution of certain individuals, but he hoped
that within a few days, or, at the furthest, within a
few weeks, the bankruptcy would be superseded. He
had but one harsh creditor, and he should never rest
until he had paid his debts in full. He submitted
there was a very divided opinion as to right under
existing circumstances to sit and vote in that house,
and he believed he was justified in his sitting and
voting since the adjudication. It should be the pride
and pleasure as well as the duty of the strong to pro-
tect the weak, and he appealed to the law officers of
the Crown, and hon. members on both sides of the house
that might follow in discussion, to consider we'l
the legal points unknown to him, and which had been
brought forward in support of the motion. He had
endeavoured to ascertain the law on the point, and he
found great doubts existed. The hon. gentleman
quoted the case of Sir R. Price as one similar to his
own, when the hon. baronet was allowed to sit and vote
after an adjudication in bankruptyy. Repeatedly since the
adjudication he had received circulars from hon. and
learned members, urging him to attend and vote on
certain questions before the house ; and so late as yes-
terday morning he received from an hon. and learned
member of that house a similar circular. He (Mr.
Townsend), therefore, considered he had acted
right in sitting and voting since the adjudicatior.
He complained of the conduct of the right hon. gen-
tleman (Mr, Fitzroy) in giving his notice of motion
for s copy of the record of adjudication without
first cOauauuicating with him and asking an explanation
of the proceedings ; and he was not aware of it until
it was communicated to him before his voting on the
motion for altering the county franchise. Being in the
house, and bavi ,g heard the question put, he considered
himself bound to vote on the motion in accordance with
the rules of the house, and be accordingly did so. He
considered the act referred to did not apply to a member
passing through the Bankruptcy Court, but after his
having passed through the court. It was said he ought
to resign the representation of the borough,
but he begged to assure the house there were 30,000
true, honest, and independent men belonging to the
borough of Greenwich who would not allow him to be
put down. They cared not, whether the repre-
sentative was possessed of 50,000/. or 5001.,
a-year. All they cared about was, that be should not
promise on the hustings to undertake more than he
would be able, to the best of his ability, or more than
he was willing, to perform, as their representative in
that House. Where there was so much doubt as in
this case now before the House, he considered it was his
bounden duty to attend and express by his votes the
opinions of his constituents on the questions that had
come before the House. He would retire during the
discussion of the question before them, and whatever
was the result he should consider himself bound to obey
it. The hon. gentleman then retired.
The SOLICITOR - GENERAL said the House
could not approach the subject without reluctance
and regret. It was a duty, however, which they must
discharge, and he had no possible doubt on the
construction of the act referred to. The construc-
tion of the act was that an adjudication was a suspension
of the functions of a member of parliament during
twelve months subject to this, that any time within the
twelve months he could supersede the bankruptcy or
pay his creditors in full, and on his informing the house
of what he had done, [be then ipso facto became re-
possessed of his rights as a member of that house.
Should no arrangement of that kind be come to at the
expiration of the twelve months the seat would be void.

He supported the motion.
After a few remarks from Mr. J. Fitzgerald, Mr.
Sergeant Deasy, and Colonel French, the motion was
agreed to.
Mr. FITZROY moved that the votes Given by Mr. J.
Townsend since 7th June last should be disallowed.—
This motion was also agreed to.
SALE AND TRANSFER OF LAND (IRELAND)

from his earliest youth to have maintained an upright
character, was tried in 1844 on account of some will for-
geries by which the country was robbed of some large
sums of money. He was found guilty on a prosecution
instituted by the commissioners for the reduction of the
national debt. He was refused a separate trial, and thus
he was deprived of the advantage of the only evidence
of which he could avail himself to prove his innocence,
and yet upon that very same evidence he was sub-
sequently pardoned, having, however, previously under-
gone the worst horrors of transportation. It will
be remembered that all the persons who were convicted
in connection with Barber had explicitly declared that
he was innocent of the frauds. He was sent to one of
our most penal settlements, and he was treated worse
than the most hardened criminals who were placed there,
his calm and quiet protestations of innocence having
brought upon him the most condign and cruel punish-
ment. Mr. Naylor, a magistrate at Norfolk Island,
bad borne testimony to his calm, quiet, consistent de-
meanour, and had stated that he should be glad to re•
new his acquaintance under happier circumstances.
Mr. Robinson, the senior superintendent of the island,
had borne similar testimony to Mr. Barber's excellent
character. (Much other testimony of a similar character
was adduced by the honourable member) Mr. Barber
was detained two years in Norfolk Island, but he met
with sympathisers, there, and remonstrances were con-
veyed to the civil commander, who said he was only
carrying out his instructions, and the treatment was of
the most cruel and barbarous character. He was sent
to the hospital, which was indeed a harbour of refuge,
although he could never hope to recover from the cruel
and unjust treatment he there received. (Hear.) He lost
a valuable and most promising practice—every vestige of
his property was swept away—and, in short, all his pro
spects were ruined, while he found himself chained to the
leg of a doubly convicted felon. Then in a convict
ship this innocent man was chained in irons until he was
landed in that ocean hell, Norfolk Island. (Hear.)
Now, this was a Government prosecution, and it was on
that account he made an appeal to the house. Mr.
Pollock, the present Lord Chief Baron, was the prose-
cuting counsel in the first case ; Mr. Erie, now Mr.
Justice Erle, was the prosecuting counsel, and both
those gentlemen drew from the witnesses, and especially
from Mr. James Freshfield, that the prosecution ema-
nated directly from the Treasury. It could not, he
thought, be doubted that the fact of this being a Govern-
ment prosecution acted most detrimentally to the pri-
soner, as the Government counsel had the last word,
and stated to the jury that the prisoner could not bring
forward a single witness to establish his innocence,
whereas by the state of the law which then existed that
Government counsel was the very man who deprive!
the unfortunate man of any testimony he might be able
to adduce in his behalf. (Hear.) The present Govern-
ment had by their energy released from a foreign dun-
geon two of our fallow-countrymen, and would they not
cow give another man who had suffered deeply adequate
remuneration for the wrongs he had endured P (Hear,
hear.) He believed that the public were in this man's
favour, and that there was not a newspaper in the
kingdom that had not declared its opinion in favour of
Mr. Barber's claims upon the government of the coun-
try. No doubt he should be told that this application
was a novel one and there was no precedent for it, but
let it be remembered that there was no precedent for
such enormous wrongs as this man had sustained.
(Hea, hear.) Another objection might be that if this
application was granted the Government would be in-
undated with applications for compensation, but that he
believed was an idle objection, for no claim could be
brought forward unless it was a precisely analogous
case. This case stood alone—of itself and by itself—
having no parallel. It had been also said that there
might be collusions if this suit were recognises!, but he
did not believe there would be any collusion when Nor
folk Island was to be the previous penalty. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) He warmly oomplimented the
present Attorney-General upon his untiring efforts on
behalf of the petitioner, and again asked for a com-
mittee, not only fur sifting the claims of the petitioner,
but for throwing a light upon circumstances tending to
improve our criminal law.
Sir J. PAKINGTON thought this an exceptional ca e,
in which it would be harsh to refuse inquiry—(hear)—
although he suggested such a modification in the
terms of the motion as should not commit the house to
any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's case. (Hear,
hear.) He was induced to accede to the motion in con
sideration of the undue sufferings which had been under-
gone by the petitioner. (Hear, hear )
Mr. BRIGHT advised that the proposed modification
should be accepted. (Hear, hear.) lie believed that
every man in the country would applaud the course
adopted by the Government. The public, he believed,
would be ready to compensate the petitioner, if it were
proved that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
After a few words from Mr. BOVILL, the original mo-
tion was withdrawn, and the modified one agreed to.
UNDER, SECRETARY OF STATE (SCOT-
LAND).

Mr. BAXTER then rose to move the following resolu-
tion:—" That in the opinion of this house an Under-
Secretary of State for Scotland should be appoi❑ted to
perform the political duties at present attached to the
office of Lord Advocate." The honourable member
said that in submitting this motion he had not the
slightest intention to reflect upon the mode in which
the duties of Lord Advocate had been performed,
but his object was to put an end to an anomalous
state of things likely to lead to abuse, and clogging
the purely judicial functions of the Lord Advocate.
For thirty years after the legislative union Scot-
land had a Secretary of State. The hon. member, in
order to lay a basis for his motion, dwelt upon the coin-
plicated political and judicial functions at present dis-
charged by the Lord Advocate, which were more than
that functionary could well get through. The Lord Ad-
vocate was the political monarch and dictator over
Scotch affairs—he discharged all the legislative business
of that country, and was the sole organ of the Ministry
in Scottish affairs. He should like to see A return of
all the railway tickets used during a session by the Lord
Advocate between England and Scotland. The Court
of Session, at which the Lord Advocate was constantly
required, sat at the same time as the Parliament, of
which be was a member. England was better repre-
sented at every petty German court than was Scotland
in the Ministry of England. (Hear, hear.) The new
Under-Secretary would have plenty to do. He would
have to originate measures affecticg Scotland, to attend
deputations, and see that Scotch business was not
delayed till undue hours of the night. (Hear, hear,
from several Scotch members.) When the question of
Scottish grievances was before the other house of Parlia-
ment several peers bad contended that the affairs of Scot-
land were neglected,Ve Earl of Eglinton and Dukeof 13uc-
cleugh, members of the present Government, aod the
Duke of Argyle and other noble lords connected with the
late Government, supporting this view. Owing to the ab-
sence of the Lord Advocate, bills frequently fell through,
The Lunacy Bill had been imperfectly dealt with in con-
sequence of the late L rd Advocate being away to con-
duct the trial of Miss Madeline Smith. By placing the
whole ecclesiastical and civil patronage in the hands of
the first practising barrister in Scotland, an undue in•
finance was given to the lawyers of Edinburgh. Another
reason why the Lord Advocate should receive the as-
sistance of an under-secretary was, that if he lost his
seat in Parliament Scotch legislation must necessarily
come to a stand still. The change would not entail any
expense, as the various stipends now allotted to the as-
sistants of the Lord Advocate would snake up the in-
come of an under-secretary. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. EWART seconded the motion.

Mr. BOUVERIE thought the hon. mover bad alto-
gether failed to show that the political duties imposed
upon the L rd Advocats had been inadequately per-
formed. He (Ur. Bouverie) had had the good for;une
to sit in the house during the period of office of
fur Lords Advocate, and he was quite at a loss
to gather in what respect their duties had been ill
performed. (Hear, hear.) The present Lord Advocate
had shown his aptitude for his distinguished posi-
tion, and he (fir. Bouverie) should regret to see the
duties now discharged by him remitted to a subordinate
minister. He was pr. pared to contend that it would he
a most sotioue loss for the country and for Scotland i
the Lord Advocate should cease to superintend the h usi-
noes of Scotland in that house. (Hear, hear.) Tue
political functions of the Lord Advocate outside the
!loth@ of Commons were confined in ordinary times to
recommendations respecting patronage, for the patron-
age of the Crown was mainly exercised by the Home
Secretary. It honcu able gentlemen would consult the
statute-book fur many years past, they would find that
there had been us !aches on the part of Lords Advocate
in preparing measures for the improvement of Scotland ,
and further, he would observe that it would have been
perfectly idle for any one who had not received the edu-
catio❑ of a Scotch lawyer to have attempted the tiv.k
of carrying thess measures of reform through Parliament.
He should certainly oppose the motion of his honourable
friend.

Mr. STIRLING suggested to his honourable friend to
qualify his motion by substituting for the words of his
resolution that an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland
should be appointed, in order to pei form a portion of the
duties at present performed by the Lord Advocate.
Mr. E. ELLICE, jun., entertained a very strong opi-
nion on the motion of his boo. friend, but it was an
opinion adverse to the motion.
Sir J. OGILVY would certainly be little disposed to
oppose the motion of his hon. friend if he thought it was
received with favour by the people of Scotland. He did
not, however, believe that the people of Scotland did re-
gard the proposal with favour, and therefore be felt him-
self entitled to follow the dictates of his personal conclu-
sions, and to oppose the motion.
Mr. CRAUFURD intended to support the motion of
his hop. friend, He thought that as a great part of the
Lord Advocate's time was taken up in his private prac-
tice at the Scotch bar, or on public prosecutions, it was
desirable that there sh,uld be ionic officer in that how e
who could answer questions in the absence of the Lord
Advocate. He hoped the mover would accept the emeriti-
went cf the hon, member for Perthshire, and so gat rid
of the verbal of j:ction which would otherwise be the only
resource of those who had no valid arguments to off, r.
Mr.
N.V. WILLIAMS should not have objected to the
motion if it had not been proposed to take money out of
the puhlic taxes.

The LORD ADVOCATE said no doubt the measure
now proposed to the house had emanated from a desire
to relieve him from some of the more laborious duties of
his office, but before he could consistently accept it as a
boon he must be satisfied of two or three things. In the
first place, it must be proved that the office was too labo-
rious ; in the second, that the measure proposed would
relieve the holder of it of any portion of those laborious
duties he at present fulfilled ; and thirdly, that that spe-
cific portion of his duties proposed to be trsnsf,rred to
the new officer would bo performed as well as they were

at present. Now he (the hon. gentleman) was sorry to
say he could not see his way to assent to the affirmative
of any ono of these propositions. (Hear.) Far be it
from him to say, for it would be perfectly inconsistent
with the fact, that the office he had then the honour to
fill was not a very laborious office, requiring a great
deal of time and attention, and involving a great deal
cf anxiety. But he was by no means eat!sfied that
because the office was laborious, even eminently labo-
rious, it followed as a necessary consequence that it was
desirable to diminish the amount of its duties. He was
not entitled to speak as a person of experience in public
life, but in one way or the other he had seen a great deal
of hard work done in his time, and had formed a very
decided opinion to this effect, that if you want a man to
do his work well you must give him plenty of it to do.
(A. laugh.) It was just because he thought that they
were going to diminish, or to attempt, rather, to dimi-
nish, the unnecessary labours of the existing office, and
at the same time to create a new efface, which would not

have, he would not say ample employment, but any-
thing like employment at all, that he objected to both
branches cf the proposal. The duties of the office of
Lord Advocate were not so easily explained in detail,
but there was a peculiar part of the office that distin-
guished it from all others, and which gave it a remark-
able prominence in the business affairs of Scotland which
some 1100. members might not so well understand, and
which arose in the first place from his peculiar duties as
a public prosecutor. The appointment of a public pro-
secutor was an institution that we had not either in
Eegland or in Ireland, and consequently they might not
at first sight fully appreciate the precise effects of such
an institution, and the value of such a public func•
tionary. In order to carry out the duties of that part
of his office it was indispensable that the Lord Ad.
vocate should have an extensive machinery throughout
the country, by means of which he could carry on the
entire series of public prosecutions for crime, whether
they were great or small, and the consequence was
there was in existence throughout Scotland, not merely
at head-quarters in Edinburgh, but in every placed any
importance, an organised machinery, by means of which
the Lcrd Advocate could put himself in communication
with every part of the country at the shortest possible
notice, and obtain the most accurate information from
the most available sources. Now the existence of this
machinery did in itself give him peculiar facilities
for the performance of public business, which he ap
prehonded would not belong to any other office that
would be created, and the consequence was that in
transacting those duties which the hoe. member for
Montrose designated the political duties of his office, he
called into requisition nothing more than the staff and
machinery which was in existence for the purpose of con-
ducting the public criminal procedure of the kingdom.
This was a source of great convenience and economy in
itself, and, at the Twee time, it involved the performance
of a class of duties by other officials engaged in it. Then
the Lord Advocate was reoponsiblo, he would not say
directly to Parliament, but be was responsible to the
Home-offize, and the Secretary of State for the Home
Department was in his turn responsible to Parliament
for the preservation of peace in Scotland. These were
the two main features of his office as public prosecutor,
in addition to hie duties as legal adviser of the Crown,
and beyond these three departments he (the Lord Advo-
cate) knew of no other that fall within the scope of his
office and authority, except those of legislation and pa-
tronage. He thought hon. members would agree with
him that he fairly stated the duties of this functionary's
office when he defined and embraced them under these
denominations. He supposed his hon. friend who sup•
ported the proposition would agree with him that it was
perfectly impossible for an Under-Secretary of State to
relieve the Lord Advocate of any portion of hie duties
as public prosecutor, or as being responsible for the
peace of Scotland, or as law adviser to the Crown, and
consequently it must be iu the other two departments
that it was proposed to relieve the Lord Advocate of a
portion of his duties, and which it was proposed should
be performed by senaebody else. But by what means
was this to be done ? The hon. member for Montrose
proposed that there should be an Under-Secretary of
S-a e for Scotland to perform the political duties of his
office ; and his hon. friend the member for Perth, not
satisfied with that, proposed to have au Under-Secre-
tery of State for Scotland in the Home-office, to perform
a portion of the duties that attached to that office. He
(the Lord Advocate) did not think there was any great
difference between the two, because he did not suppose
that the hon. member for Montrose, in suggesting the
appointment of an Under-Secretary of State fir Scot-
land, meant that he might to unattached to any great
department, or that he should sit as an independent offi-
cer in come tribunal or department of his own, and if
that was not so he must mean that it should be with the
Under Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Now he could fairly state, so far as regarded the
Titration of the Home Department with reference to the
affairs of Scotland, so far as his (the hon. member's) ex-
perience went, he bad not since he came into office, he
thought he might say with perfect confidence and safety,
had one communication on the affairs of Scotland from
the Home-Office addressed to him by the Under Secre-
tary of State for that deraetraant which would not have
been required equally to come to him if there had been
a Scotch Under Secretary of State, and for this plain
reason, because the correspondence consisted of two
classes of communications. Gue class required explana-
tion with regard to the legal system of Scotland, and to
its administration in its different departments ; and the
other had reference to the procuring returns, and things
of that kind, which after all were mere matters of ma-
chinery and routine, and which were effected through a
staff which he had already described as being under the
command of the Lord Advocate himself. So far as the
ordinary business transactions in the Horne I).partment
affected Scotland were concerned it came to this, that
if they were to appoint a secretary in the Home Depart-
ment, who ehoul I henceforth pass under the name of the
Scottish Secretary of the Home Department, it would
not, in the first place, relieve the Horne Secretary of
any portion of his duties whatever; and, in the second
place, it would rot ensure the performance of those
duties at the Home-office one whit the better that before.
He should be glad to see any of his friends who repre-
sented a Scotch constituency in the honourable poeition
of Under Secretary of State for Scotland, but as re-
garded that part of the business that came frem the
Home-office, it did not in the least degree matter as re-
garded the efficiency of the way in which it war per-
formed, whether it came from the hands of an Under
Secretary of State who was a Scotchman, and understood
Scotch affairs, or from the hands of any Under Secre-
tary of State who might be there for the time duly
qual,fial for the performance of his office. But thin it
Was said that in regard to Scottish legislative mailers
there was much need of some ancillary assistance ; that
there was a great want of some one in the Gevenenent
to take charge of Scottish bills in that house, so that
they might be advanced at a more rapid rate, and so that
hon. members and measures might not be driven into
those midnight hours which were so justly and generally
deprecated and objected to for the commencement of en-
porteut debates. He (the Lord Advocate) could have
wished that the hon. member for Montrose had explaioed
by what weans he intended to arm the Under-Secretary
of State with further facilities in that house for the .n-
-troductiun and discussion of Scottish legislative mea-
sures, so as to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to give biro larger scope and oonvenience for bringing
forward his bills. How, be wished to know, were there
midnight hours to be avoided ? In what way were bills
to be expedited at a more magic rate in consequence of
the presence of this additional functionary who was to
use his influence in addition to that of the Lord Advo-
cate in accelerating the ratio of Scottish business pro.
gress F He bad no particular claim on the house for hi;
own services, but he thought his predecessor had beer,
very attentive to his duties, and he thought it an extra
ordinary complaint against his learned friend that in
order to c3nduct a most important case in Scotland he
was for ono week absent. As to the Lunacy Bill, which
it was said aas an ill-considered piece of legislation,
that was not owing to the absence of the Lord-Advo-
cate, but was because a vote of the house bad hurried it
on. His learned friend had given his best attention to it,
and had been wonderfully succe•sfel under the circum-
stances. He did not think Scotch legislation suffered
from these causes more than Irish legislation, though
there was a Secretary for Ireland. He really thought
that if a Scotch Secretary were appointed, he would not
know whet to do with his time ; and, for his part, he
cool! not tell what he (the Lord Advocate) could give
him to do if be (the Secretary) were placed under
his control. (A laugh.) The honourable member for,
Mootrose alluded to unnecessary °Susi that had
existed in Scotland, and had implied that it was nearly
the same now. Was the hon. member ignorant that
since 1824 the Courts of Exchequer and Admiralty, the
Caneistory Court, and some of the Sheriffs' Courts had
been abolished I (Hear, hear ) He would venture to
say there was sot a man in any judimal office or any
office connected with the courts, who was not doing fair
work for his salary. He was sorry ao see a feeling of
jealou-y of the legal profession, which he had thought
was aleraye repented is Scotland. It was only an hon-
ourable motive that could induce any member of the
Scotch bar to undertake the arduous duties of Lord
Advocate, at s considerable pecuniary sacrifice, and that
he would not be led to accept the office for the sake of
pay or patrontge, unless he was also urged by the higher
motive of a de-ire to serve his country. (Cheers.)
Lord DUNCAN said it was quite refreshing to hear
the member for Lambeth in his place again advocating
economy ; but it was on the score of economy that any
Eton. member who advocating this measure might justly
his vote. Even if 1,500/. a year additional was neces-
sary, he did not think the English members would
grudge it. But what the hon. member for Montrose had
proposed was not to go to an expense of 1,5001. a year,
but to do away with existing offices, amongst others that
of the Lard of the Treasury, which he had himself once
filled. He should oppose the motion as he objected to
unnecessary legislation.
L rrd PALMERSTON said that having been fur
some time Home Secretary, and having some experi-
ence of the connection of the duties of the Lord Advo-
cate with the Lowe Government, he could not support
the motion. He did sot oppose it on the ground of the
additional expense, :or he thought there might be
found offices which tri ght be abolished. At the seine

time he woull not ale lish offices for the mere purpose
of creatir g a❑ office which was unnecessary. There
were no rditioal duties of the Lord Advocate which
could be performed ty an under-secretary of state, and
if there were any dities at all that could be trans-
ferrk d it must be a person who was responsible,
namely, to the Secretary of State, and not only to an
under scare tary of State. The duties performed by the
Lord Advocate in that house were not political, except
to vote on all occasio►s with his party, but to superin-
tend and Fags through Parliament bills affecting the in-
terests of Scotland, jest as the Attorney and Solicitor
Generals were authorities on matters connected with
Ireland. At present the Secretary of State for the
Horne Department vas reeponeible for everything co

nected with Scotland which was not regulated by local
authorities, but under the proposed system the Home
Sscretary would have to consult with his own under sec-
retary instead of with the Lord Advocate, and that he
thought would not be an improvement. But at present
the Home Secretary was not at present guided entirely
by the opinion of the Lord Advocate, although of course
he consulted him ; so that whether they had a lord ad-
vocate or an under-secretary of state, the Home Secre-
tary would be responsible, and it would be impossible
to transfer that authority. But there was a vast deal
of business in connection with Scotland which was en-
tirely despatched by the Home Secretary without any
consultation with the Lord Advocate, and 'which he
conducted solely on his own responsibility. So that the
Lord Advocate had no greater influence than the Secre-
tary, for the Home Secretary for the time being liked to
be attached to his opinions, and that state of things
would be in no sense altered by the appointment of an
under-secretary of state. Indeed, he believed if such an
office were constituted it would prove such a sinecure,ae
very soon to attract the attention and censure of Par-
liament. (Hear.) It had been suggested that the
office of Scotch Lord of the Treasury might be ab dished,
but that would be impracticable, as that cfficer had pe-
culiar duties to perform, which could not by any possi-
bility be transferred to the Home-office, and which could
not be transacted elsewhere than in the Treasury. (Hear.)
He did not think the new office was necessary for the
transaction of business in that house, for whenever
a Scotch bill came before Parliament it was gene-
rally found that the Scotch members had met out of
doors and agreed upou some general principles, and
therefore these measures were easily passed through.
He did not think the object of the motion would be that
proposed, for it would not create a responsible officer,
whereas the Home Secretary was now responsible for
everything that was done by the Crown in relation to
the affairs of Scotland.
Mr. DUNLOP said that the experience he had ob-
tained since he came into parliament, convinced him
that some change in the existing system was indis-
pensable. No doubt the duties of the Lord Advocate
had been well performed by the learned gentlemen who
had at various times held it, but still there were many
shortcomings which arose, not from the want of ability,
but from faults inherent in the system. (Hear, hear.)
In order to perform the daties properly, it was necessary
that a Lord-Advocate should sacrifice much of his pro-
fessional practice, and yet be was compelled, in anticipa-
tion of a change of ministry, to retain a hold of it, in
order that it might not entire!), slip through his hands.
Under these circumstances a man oould not adequately
perform his duties as Lord-Advocate without making a
sacrifice which it was wrong to ask any person to make.
One great defsct in connection with Scotch legisla' ion
was, that Scotch bills were brought in at too late a
period to secure for them a full and air consideration.
It was not intended by this motion to take from the
Lord-Advocate any of his rights or duties as public pro-
secutor, but this they contended for, that at present a
vast deal of business went to the Lord-Advocate which
did not properly pertain to his office. The object of the
motion was not to supersede the Home Secretary, but
to place some one in his office who was able to transact
Scotch business.

The C HANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the question of 1,5001. or 15,0001. a-year ought not to
enter into consideration. But what they had to look to
was whether the present system was wanting in re-
sponsibility or efficiency. With regard to the former
branch, he had never heard any complaints, for if there
were any matters of importance connected with Scot-
land to be considered they always met with ready ac-
knowledgment in Parliament, and with regard to effi-
ciency, he had no hesitation in saying, from an experi-
ence of twenty years, that no office bad been conducted
with such continuous ability and sueh sustained intelli-
gence as the office of Lord Advocate in Scotland. The
measures they had introduced and carried through were
an answer to those charges which had been made with
regard to midnight legislation. (Hear, hear.) He could
not think that Scottish legislation was neglected in that
house, and he could not believe that Scotch members
had more cause for complaint than Engl-1 or Irish
members. At all events, he did not think it would be
improved by the appointment of an Under-Secretary for
Scotland. (Hear, hear.) Many Irish members took a
directly opposite course, and asked for the abolition of
the office of Lord-Lieutenant. These Irish members
wished to bring the affairs of L eland more directly into
connection with the Home Government, while the
Scotch members were endeavouring to get back to a
mere provincial administration. (Hear.) He must con-
fess that he was surprised to find that Scotch members
should wish to have their affairs conducted not by the
best lawyer that could be found, but by a subordinate
political officer. He thought by adopting the resolution
they would ba carrying out a deteriorating step, and
lowering Scotland in the scale, and he could not, on the
part of the Government, support it.
Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY complained there
was no Scotch L )rd of the Treasury, and urged upon
the Government the propriety of appointing one.
Mr. BAITER, in reply, said that he was ready to
adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Perth.
The motion so amended was then put—

Aes 47
Noyes 174
Majority against the motion —l27
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS.

Mr. Sergeant DEASY, after the statements that had
been made by the Secretary of State for War and the
Vice. President of the Board of Control in that house
restive to the increased provision it was intended to
make in England and India for the appointment of Ro•
man Catholic chaplains to regiments, sod the increased
facilities for the education of Roman Catholic children,
said he should withdraw the resolution of which he had
given notice relative to the subject. (Hear, hear.)
THE POLICE FORCE IN DUBLIN AND IRE

position to say on what morning the debate would be
taken.

After a few words from Mr. CLIVE, the debate was
adjourned till Thursday.
COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE ACT AMEND-
MENT BILL.
This bill passed through committee pro:forma.
PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT
CONTINUANCE BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
UNIVERSITIES(SCOTLAND)ALLOWANCES,&c.
The report was brought up and received.
The house then adjourned at half-past twelve.