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

THE SUN,
___,LONDONI WEDNESDAY EVENINTI, JUNE 16, 1858.

Mr. FITZROY then moved that the 52d George 111.,
chap, 144, be read.
Sir D. LB 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 hie duty towards
his constituents, himself, and the house that he should
offer a few observations in explanation of the votes he
had given on several late occasions and the reasons for
retaining his seat. Since he had had a seat in that
house be had endeavoured to conform to the rules and
regulations. He had never, in a single instance, thrust
himself on the society of any hon. member, and if
he had erred in taking his seat and
voting since
the adjudication, he bad done so in ignorance,
and not in defiance of the rules of that house. It wag
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few weeks, the bankruptcy would be superseded.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 well
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 bankruptcy. Repeatedly since,the
adjudication he had received circulars from boa, 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 bad acted
right in sitting and voting since the adjudication.
He complained of the conduct of the right hon. gen-
tleman (Mr. Fitzroy) in giving his notice of motion
for a copy of the record of adjudication without
first communicating 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 havit g heard the question put, he considered
himself bound to vote on the motion in accordance with
the rules of the house, and he 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 50,0001. or 5001.,
a-year. All they cared about was, that he 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 consieered 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, jhe 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 OA,
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)
BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. Sergeant DEASY said] compansation should be
provided in the bill f a Mr. Flanagan, one of the trus-
tees of the Encumbered Estates Court, who had for
many years filled the office, and had given up another to
accept it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said it
was not desirable to make a distinction between Mr.
Flanagan and the other officers.
After a discussion, in which Mr. J. Fitzgerald, I.4qrd
Naas, Mr. Monsell, Mr. B. Osborne, Colonel French,
Mr. Barrow, and Mr. Horemaa took part, the house
went into committee on the bill.
Clause 1 and 2 were agreed to.
On clause 3, a question arose whether there should
be three judges of the Court, or only two as provided by
the bill.
The discussion occupied the house till ten minutes to
4 o'clocif, whou by u1..0 Iva of .Ltk:r.s
suspended.
The house resumed at 6 o'clock.
ASSISTANT BARRISTERS.

Mr. lIASSARD moved an address for return of the
names of the assistant barristers who have been absent
from quarter sessions during tae last four years, and
the names of the barristers to whom deputations have
been given by the Lord Chancellor on such occasions,
specifying each session, the assistant-barrister and de-
puty in each instance. —The return was ordered.
THE ENFIELD MUSKET.

Col. WILLIAMS asked the Secretary of State for
War, whether he had received aey reports complaining
of the inefficiency of the Enfield musket, as being a
weapon inappliable to the service generally, and more
especially to the war in India, and if so, whether it is
the intention of her Majesty's Government to institute
inquiries with a view to the substitution of a musket
better adapted to the exigencies of the service in that
locality?
Gen. PEEL said he was exceedingly surprised at the
question which had been put to him. No report had
reached the War Department, or the office of the Com-
mander-in-Chief, which would warrant the interpretation
inferred by the question. Everybody was of opinion that
the E&leld musket was the best that could be had.
THE CAGLIARI.
Mr. DEASY asked the Under Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether the arrangement by which the
King of Naples placed the Cagliari and her crew at the
disposal of her Majesty was made with the concurrence
of the Sardinian Government, or whether it has been ap-
proved of by that Government ; and also, whether he
has any objection to lay the papers relating to the sub-
ject before the house ?
Mr. W. S. FITZGERALD said the arrangement by
which the Cagliari and crew were placed at the disposal
of her Majesty's Government was not with the concur.

rence of the Sardinian Government. Neither her Majes-
ty's Government nor the Sardinian Government had any
knowledge of the intention of the King of Naples to
make such an arrangement. They knew nothing what-
ever of the intention until it was publicly announced.
The English Government presented a categorical note
respecting the chip and crew, and they had learned that
a !similar request was to have been made by the Sardi-
nian Government; but the request of the Sardinian Go-
vernment had not been made, because when the Eng-
lish Government heard that the Cagliari was to be sur-
rendered they requested that the Sardinian note might
be withheld. Since that time the representative of the
Sardinian Government at the English Court bad ex-
pressed his entire satisfaction with the arrangement
that had been made. With respict to the latter
part of the question, he had to state that the Govern-
ment had no objection to lay the papers bef ,re the
house, but they were bulky and required translation. At
as early a period as possible they should be produced.
TRANSPORT OF TROOPS TO INDIA.
Mr.NICOLL asked the member for Westminster when
the report of the committee on transport of troops to In-
dia would be laid on the table of the house I
Sir DE L. EVANS said that a draft report had been
laid before the house. On Friday next the detailed re-
port would be laid before the house, and he hoped to be
Mr..
MHEANPGOLLELSUT inquired
OF
whTeHthEer t
able to call attention to it on that day. (Hear.)
T
TES. He At
Government Me Thames
intended to do anything with regard
to?
(Laughter.) The question seemed to excite some merri-
ment in the house, but he did not understand why. We
had running through London one of the noblest rivers
oblest rivers in
the world, and it was at present in such a state as to
threaten to poison the whole town. [Ron. members who
laughed before, supposing that Mr. Mangles was about
to seek some intelligence with regard to India, now made
amends for their apparent frivolity by heartily cheering
the question.]
Lord J. MANNERS said the Government had nothing
to do with the Thames, the whole jurisdiction of which
rested with the Metropolitan Board cf Works. That
board had special powers with regard to the river. The
Commissioner of Works had, however, to sanction or to
reject any scheme which might emanate from the Board
of Works, but up to the present time be bad received no
plan to which he assent, or from which he could
could
withhold approval Ile had received no suggestion of any
kind. At present, there f .re, the Government had ni con-
cern with the river. It might be satisfactory to the hon.
member who put the question and the boys:: to know that
in his (Lord J. Manners') individual capacity he was

serying on a committee for the purpose of investigating
various schemes for the purification of the Thames. The

cmnmittee worli very shortly make their report, and tie
honourar la member would then see what was the extEnt

f the reepon ibility of the government.
THE CASE OF MR. BARBER, THE SOLICITOR.
Mr. BRADY moved for a select committee to in-
quire into the allegations contained in the petition of
William Henry Barber, presented upon the 27th day of
April last, and to consider and report whether any and
what redress should be afforded to the petitioner ; and
whether any and what other steps should be taken in
reference to the matters alleged. The honourable mem-
her said this Was a case of wrong, followed by degrada-
tion and cruelty, such as had never been brought under
the consideration of the house. Mr, Barber, a gentle-
man of considerable reputation in society, and known

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
slims 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 crud punish.
ment. Mr. Naylor, a magistrate at Norfolk Island,
had 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 be 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 rduge,
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 be made an appeal to the house. Mr.
Pollock, the present Lord Chief Baron, was the prose-
cuting counsel in the first case ; Mr, Erle, 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 list 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 deprived
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 fellow-countrymen, and would they not
now give another man who bad suffered deeply adequate
remuneration for the wrongs he had endured I (Hear,
hear.) lie 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.
(Ilea, 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 recognised, 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 complimented the
present Attorney-General upon his untiring efforts on
behalf of the petitioner, and again asked for a com-
mittee, not only for 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 case,
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'w 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.) He 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 juitice.
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 cf State for Scotland should be appointed 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 bad been performed,
but Lis obj-set 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 Snro'ary of State. The hon. member, i❑
order to lay a basis for his motion, dwelt upon the com-
plicated political and judicial functions at present dis-
char2ed by the Lord Advocate, which were more than
that functionary could well get through. Tho 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 he 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 affectirg 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 had contended that the affairs of Scot-
land were neglected,t'le Earl of Eglinton and Duke of Buc-
cleugh, members of the present Government, and the
Duke of Argyle and other noble lords connected with the
late Government, supporting this view. 0 wing to the ab-
sence of the Lord Advocate, bills frequently fell through.
The Lunacy Bill had bee❑ imperfectly dealt with in con-
sequence of the late Lord 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•
fluence was given to the lawyers of Edinburgh. Another
reason why the Lord Advocate should receive the as-
si,tance 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 make 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 Advocate had been inadequately per-
formed. He (\lr. Bouverie) had had the good fortune
to sit in the house during the period of office of
bur Lords Advocate, and he was quite at a loss
to gather in what respect their duties had been ill
performed. (Hear, bear.) The present Lord Advocate
had shown his aptitude for his distinguished posi-
tion, and he (sir. 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 be
a moat serious lose for the country and for Scotland i.
the Lord Advocate should cease to superintend the busi-
ness of Scotland in that houi.e. (Hear, hear.) The
political functions of the Lord Advocate outside the
House 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 honeu able gentlemen would consult the
statute-book for many years past, hey would find that
there bad been no 'aches on the part of Lords Advocate
in preparing measures fur 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-
cation of a Scotch lawyer to have attempted the ta,k
of carrying there measures of reform through Parliament.
He should certainly oppose the motion of his honourable
friend.

Mr. STIRLING suggo3ted to his honourable friend to
qualify his motion by substituting for the words of big
resolution that an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland
should be appointed, in order to perform a portion of the
duties at present perforrne,l 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 tl the motion.

Sir J. OGILVY. would certainly be little disposed to
oppose
seethweit ohiofativoonurofbhyisohleonp.eofrile
i)endofifs he thought htiltte wasdid
r
not, however, believe that the people of Scotland didre-
sgeairfdenthtietid
proposal
followosalwiththfeavdoicutra,taens of and therefore
eirepfoerrseohnealfeltbim-
conclu-
sions, and to oppose the motion.
Mr. CRAUFURD intended to support the motion of
his hon. 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 I.ln,tild be eoinc officer in that house
who could answer questions in the absence of the Lord
Advocate. He hoped the mover would accept the amend-
ment cf the hon, member for Perthshire, and so get rid
cf the verbal of jection which would otherwise be the only
resource of those who had no valid arguments to offer.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS should not have objseted t, the
motion if it had not been proposed to take money out of
the public 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 befora 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 tr.insferred to
the new officer would be 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 one 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 satisfied 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 office, which would not
have, be 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 hon. 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
England 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•
voo*te 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 wero 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 Lord 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
prehended woul.l not belong to any other office that
would be created, and the consequence was that in
transacting those duties which the hon. member fur
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 same time, it involved the performance
of a class of duties by other officials engaged in it. Then
the Lord Advcoate was responsible, he would not say
directly to Parliament, but he was responsible to the
Home-office, and the Secretary of State for the Home
Department was in hie 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 his duties as legal adviser of the Crown,
and beyond these three departments he (the Lord Advo-
cate) knew of no other that fell within the scope of his
office and authority, except those of legislation and pa-
tronage. He thought hon. members would agree with
hire 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 fur an Under-Secretary of State to
relieve the Lord Advocate of any portion of his 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 in 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 somebody 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
seti,fied with that, proposed to have art Under-Secre-
tary 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 Lot think there was any great
difference between the tao, because he did not suppose
that the hon. member for Montrose, in suggesting the
appointment of an Under-Secretary of State for Scot-
land, meant that he might be unattached to any great
department, or that he should sit as an independent offi-
cer in some 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 rogartied the admini-
stration of the Home Department with reference to the
affairs of Scotland, so far as his (the hon, member's) ex-
perience went, he had 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 deear:mant which would not have
bean 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. Oae 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 bad already described as being under the
command of the Lord Advoeate himself. So far as the
ordinary business transactions in the Home Department
affected Scotland were concerned it came to this, that
if they were to appoint a secretary in the Home Depart-
ment, who should henceforth pass under the name of the
Scottish Secretary of the Home Department, it would
not, in the fist place, relieve the Home Secretary of
any portion of his duties whatever; and, in the second
place, it would not ensure the performance of those
duties at the Home-office one whit the better than before.
He should be glad to see any of his frienls who repre-
sented a Scotch constituency in the honourable position
of Under Secretary of State for Scotland, but as re-
garded that part of the business that came from the
Home-office, it did not in the least degree matter as re-
garded the efficiency of the way in which it was 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
qualified for the pelf ntindnce of his office. But then it
was said that in regard to Scottish legislative matters
there was much need of some ancillary assistance; that
there was a great want of some one in the Government
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 im-
portant debates, He (the Lord Advocate) could Lave
wished that the hon. member for Montrose had explained
by what means he intended to arm the Under-Secretary
of State with further facilities in that house for the in-
troduction and discussion of Scottish legislative mea-
sures, so as to induce the Chancellor of the Exchecper
to give hint larger scope and convenience for bringing
fere ore hie bills. How, be wished to know, were these
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 ? He had no particular claim on the house for his
own services, but he thought his predecessor had been
very attentive to his duties, and he thought it an extra-
ordinary complaint against his learned friend that in
order to conduct a most important case in Scotland he
was for one week absent. As to the Lunacy Bill, which
it was said eae 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 had hurried it

on. Big learned friend had given his best attention to it,
and had been wonderfully succe,sful under the circum-

stances. He did not fbink Scotch legislation suffered
from these causes more than Irish legislation, though
there was a S,:eratary for Irelar.d. He really thought
that if a Scotch Secretary were appointed, he would not
know what to do with his time ; and, for his part, he
couli 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
Montrose alluded to unnecessary offices 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
Cousistory C .urt, and some of the Sheriffs' Courts had
been ab .fished (Hear, hear.) He would venture to
say there was not a man in any judicial office or any
office connected with the courts, who was not doing fair
work for his salary. He was sorry to see a feeling of,
jealouy of the legal profession, which he had thought
was always rappeeted in Scotland. It was only an bon-
ourablr motive that could inducd any member of the '
Scotch bar to undertake the arduous duties of Lord
Advocate, at a considerable pecuniary sacrifice, and that
he would not be led to accept the office for the sake of
pay or patronage, 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 merelpf for Lambeth in his place again advocating
economy ; but it was on the score of economy that any
lion. member who advocating this measure might justify
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

propoMed Wl9 not to go to an expense of 1,500/. a year,
but to du away with existing offices, amongst others that
of the Lord of the Treasury, which he had himself once
filed. He shoutl oppose the motion as he objected to

unnecessary lt,giqlation.
,rd PALMERSTON said that having been far
some time Home Secretary, and having soma experi-
ence of the connection of the duties of the Lord Adro-

cate with the hone Government, ha could not support

tho motion. Ile did not opp ise it on the ground of tho
a.dditional expense, for he thought them might be
found offices which might be abolished. At the same

time l,e wcull not abolish offices for the mere purpose
of creatir g an cffice which was unnecessary. There
were no pAitiesl duties of the Lord Advocate which

could be performed by an under-secretary of state, and
if there were airy duties at all that could be trans-
ferri d it must be a person who was responsible,
namely, to the Secretary of State, and not only to an
under stern tary of State. The duties performed by the
Lord Advocate in that house were not political, except
to vote on all occasions with his party, but to superin-
tend and pass through Parliament bills affecting the in-
t.-rests of Scotland, just as tho Attorney and Solicitor

Generals were authOrities on matters connected with
Irel,lnd, At present the Secretary of State for the

Home Department was responsible for everything co

netted with Scotland which was not regulated by local
authorities, but under the proposed system the Home
Secretary would have to consult with his own under sec-
retary instead of with the bard 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 iwhich 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.as
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 officer had pe-
culiar duties to perform, which could not by any possi-
bility be tra❑sferred to the Home-office, and which could
not be transacted she where 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 upon 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 duties properly, it was necessary
that a Lord-Advocate should sacrifice much of his pro-
fessional practice, and yet he was compelled, in anticipa-
tion of a change of ministry, to retain a hold of it, in
order that it might not entirely slip through his hands.
Under these circumstances a man could not adequately
perform his duties as Lord-Advocate without making a
sacrifice which it was wrong to ask any person to make.
One great defect in connection with Scotch legislation
was, that Scotch bills were brought in at too late a
period to secure for them a full andf 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 had been conducted
with such continuous ability and such 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 Eng:Wl 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 Ireland 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 be 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 Lord of the Treasury, and urged upon
the Government the propriety of appointing one.
Mr. BAXTER, in reply, said that he was ready to
adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Perth.
The motion so amended was then put—

Ayes 47
Noes
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
re'ative to the increased provision it was intended to
make in England and India fur the appointment of Po•
man Catholic chaplains to regiments, and 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
LAND.

Lord NAAS moved for leave to introduce a bill to
make better provision for the police force in Dublin and
other towns in Ireland. The Dublin police force num-
bered 1,025 officers and men, and the cost amounted to
77,0001., per annum, part of which was paid out of the
consolidated fund. He had no fault to find with the
general manner in which they discharged their duty, but
the principal objection to the force was its relative size
to the population, which amounted to 300,000 persons.
The calculation he had made of the cost included police
stations and the recorder's salary. In Manchester, the
police force was 1 in 520 of the inhabitants, and in
Liverpool 1 to 328, in Birmingham 1 to 648, in Bristol
1 to 457, in the Metropolitan districts 1 to 384, but in
Dublin it was 1 to 272 of the inhabitants. The police of
Belfast was a 10011 force, which produced much confu-
sion with the constabulary. It consisted of 350 men, and
cost 5,7001. per annum. Tee noble lord referred to the
report of the commissioners, who recommended a total
change in the management and appointment of this force.
The same-objection that applied to the religion of men
appointed to the city of Dublin applied to the Belfast
police force. There were two classes of towns in Ireland
under different police regulations ; and there was a third
class different from them, the police in the latter being
under the Towns' Improvement Act. On discovering
these evils it became the duty of the Government to come
to the conclusion it was desirable to abolish the local
forces of Dublin and Belfast, and amalgamate them with
the general constabulary forces of the country, and place
them on the same footing. Fullo wing the principal of
the act passed last year, he proposed to fix the Parlia-
mentary quota for the towns of Dublin and Belfast
as follows—for Dublin 400 men, and Belfast 100 men
which would give no additional charge to the consoli-
dated fund. The Lord-Lieutenant would have the
power of affixing such additional force as he might think
necessary for the preservation of the peace for those
towns, a moiety of which would be charged to the local
rotes. After providing for the retirement of the pre-
sent force, there would be at the end of foueor five years
a considerable saving to the rates of Dublin. The force
would be under the control of the Inspector-General.
Changes would also be made in the police courts, which
would also effect a considerable saving. With respect
to the smaller towns, he proposed they should be placed
on the same footing as now adopted at Belfast, paying a
moiety of any extra force they might require. He
thought the change proposed would give satisfaction.
All those he had spoken to relative to thu proposed
scheme agreed in the principle. He gave a uniform
police force, and whilst he did not increase the cost on
the consolidated fund, he at the same time proposed a
saving in many cases of the local rates.
Mr. 3. FITZGERALD considered the noble lord
deserved thanks for the proposition, but he (Mr. Fitz-
geral) regretted so gigantic a scheme had been brought
in so late in the session. He should offer no objection
to the introduction of the bid. He hoped a day would
ba fixed for the second reading, that would give the
house and the country an opportunity of considering its
provisions.

- The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND
said the heads of the police force bad stated their opinior,
there would be no difficulty in carrying out the proposed
scheme. They looked upon it as a plain, honest. sensible,
and economical measure, awl one that ought to be carried
out.

Leave was then given to bring in the bill,
Lord NAAS then obtained leave to bring in a bill for
the more effectual administration of justice in the police
district of Dublin metropolis.
LEGITIMACY AND DIVORCE AND MATRI-
MONIAL CAUSES.
On the motion of
The ATFORNEY-GENERAL, leave was given to
bring in a bill to enable persons to establish their legi-
timacy by the judgment of a court of law, and also to
enable persons in like manner to establish their right to
be regarded as natural-born subjects of Great Britain ;
and to extend the jurisdiction of the Court for Divorce
and Ma,rimonid CaIISPR.
NEW TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES.
On the motion of Mr. M‘MAIION, leave was given
to bring in a bill to secure th:s right of trial in criminal
cages.

GALWAY FREE NIENDISFRANCIIISE NIENT

BILL.
On the order of the day for
tho adjourned debate in
going into committee on this bill being read,
Mr. B HOPE deprecated proceeding with a measure
likely to provoke discussi )n after twelve o'clock, and
moved the po3tponeritent cf the debate for a fortnight.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given an intima-
tion that fresh debates Should not come on after twelve
o'clock.

Sir J. SHELLEY could not assent to theadjournment
for a fortnight without some reason being assigned.
Mr. CLAY hoped the Government would fix a morn-
ing sitting for this measure.
Sir J. PAKINGTON repelled the insinuation that
the Government in any way held back from proceeding
with the bill. Important debates had hitherto shut out
this particular bill. He quite acquiesced in the wisdom
of not proceeding with new t-übi eats after twelve o'clock.
(Hear, hear.) He hoped that. by Thursday or Friday
next the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in A

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

After a few words from Mr. CLIVE, the debate was
adj.urned 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.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-JUNE 15.

UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (SCOTLAND).
Motion made, and question put, " That, in the opinion of
this house, an Under Secretary of State for Scotland should
be appointed in the Home-office, to perform a portion o
the duties at I resent attached to the office of Lord Advo-
cate." The house divided ; ayes 47, noes 174.
AYES-47.
Crossley, F. Locke, John
Davie, Sir IL R. F. MacEvoy, E.
Deasy, R. Mackie, J.
Dodson, J. Maguire, J.
Duff, M, Morris, D.
Duff, L. Napier, Sir C.
Duke, Sir J. Nicol, D.
Dundas, F. Smollett, A.
Dunlop, A. Stirling, William
Ewart, J. Turner, J. A.
Greene, J. White, J.
Hadfield, G. Wingfield, R.
Hamilton, Capt. Wood, W.
Harris, J.
Kinnaird, A.
Kirk, W.
Lang ton,ll. G.
NOES-174,
Archdall, M. Forde, Colonel Pakington,:Sir J.
Atherton, W. Forster, Sir G. Palmerston, Viset
Baillie, 11. Gard, R. Pease, 11.
Ball, E. Gaskell, J. Peel, Gen.
Bernard, T. Glyn, G. G. Philips. J. H.
Bernard, Col. Gore, W. Pilkington, J.
Barrow, W. Greenall, G. Portman, W.
Beecroft, G. Gray, Captain Pugh, D.
Bentinck ,G. W.P . Griffith, C. Ramsay, Sir A.I
Black, Adam Grogan, E. Raynham, Viscous
Boldero, Col. H. G. Gurdon, B. Ricardo, 0.
Botfield,B. • Hamilton, Lord C. Richardson, J.
Bouverie-, Hon. E. P. Hamilton, G. A. Ridley, G. •
Bouverle, Hon. P. P. Hamilton, J. H. Robertson, P.
Bramston, T. W. Hardy, G. Rolt, J.
Brocklehurst, J. Hayes, Sir E. Roupell, W.
Brown, W. Heard, J. Rushout, G.
Bruce, C. Henley, J. Russell, H.
Bruen, H. Hill, Lord E. Russell, A.
Buckley, Gen. Hill, R. C. Rust, James
Buller, Sir J. Hodgson, W. Salisbury, E.
Buller, J. W. Hope, A. Sandon, Viscount
Burrell, Sir C. Hornby, W. Sclater, G.
Cairns, H. Horsfall, T. B. Scott, Major
Calcraft, J. H. Hotham, Lord Slbthorp, Major
Calcutt, M. Hunt, G. Smith, A.
Cavendish, W. Ingham, R. Spaight, J.",
Cayley, E. Inglis, J. Spooner, R.
Child, Smith Jones, D. Stanley, Lord
Cholmeley, Sir M. Kelly, Sir F. Stapleton, J.
Christie, Samuel Kershaw, J. Steuart, Andrew
Clark, J. King, J. Sullivan, Michael
Clive, Hon. R. King, E. Talbot, C.
Cole, H. A. Kinglake, A. Thompson, Gen.
Colebroke, Sir T. Kingscote, Capt. R. Thornely, T.
Collins, T. Knatchball-Hugel sen Thornhill, W
Corry, H. T. L. Knight, F. Tite, IV.
Cross, R. Knightley, R. Tollemache, Fred.
Cubitt, W. Laslett, W. Tomline, G.
Dalglish, R. Lefroy, A. Tottenham, C.
Davey, R. Lennax,Lord H. Trollope, Sir J.
Disraeli, B. Lopes, Sir M. Vance, J.
Dobbs, W. Lovaine, Lord Vansittart, G.
Duncan, VlSCouat Lowther, Col. H. C. Waldron, L.
Dundas, G. Lygon, Hon. F. Warre, J.
Dunkellin, Lord Lytton, Sir G. Whitbread, S.
Ellice, E. Magan, W. H. Whiteside, J.
Elliot, J. Manners, Lord J. Whitmore, H.
Elphinstone, Sir J. March, Earl of Wickham, H. W.
Elton, Sir A. Martin, P. Williams, W.
Estcourt, T. Melgund, Viscount Wilson, J.
Evans, T. W. .Miller, S. B. Wise, J,
Ewing, H. Mills, T. Woods, H
Fenwick, 11. Moffatt, G. Wortley, Major
Fergus, J. Montgomery, Sy G. Wyndham, General
Fitzgerald, W. R.S. Mowbray J. R.' Yorke, E.
Fitzgerald, J. Naas, Lord TELLERS.
Fitzroy, Hon. H. Newport, Viscount Jolliffe, Sir W.
Foljambe, F. Ogilvy, Sir J. Taylor, Col.

Agnew, Sir A.
Anderson, Sir J.
Berkeley, Hon. H
Biggs, J.
Blackburn, Peter
Blake, J.
Bland, L.
Brady, J.
Browne, Lord J.
Buchanan, W.
Laird, James
Clay, James
Clifford 'Col .
Clive, G.
Cowan, C.
Cox William
Cranford, E. H. J.

TELLERS.
Baxter; W. E.
Ewart,.W.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—June 15.

DIVORCE COURT.
ROBINSON V. ROBINSON AND LANE.
The hearing of this petition for a dissolution of
marriage by a husband against a wife on the ground
of adultery was resumed this morning.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Dr. Addams, Q.C.,
Mr. Skinner, Q.C., and Mrs. Kerslake' were coun-
sel for the petitioner ; Mr. Forsyth, Q.C., and Mr.
Coleridge for the co-respondent, Dr. Lane ; and Dr.
Phillimore, Q.C., for Mrs. Robinson.
At the sitting of the Court some discussion took
place as to whether Dr. Phillimore, who repre
sented the wife, ought not to address the Court
before Mr. Forsyth, who represented the alleged
adulterer, but it was stated that an arrangement
had been made, which need not be drawn into a
precedent, that Mr. Forsyth should begin.
The Lord ClOf Justice said that the wife's being
the principal case, the correct practice would be
for the counsel for the wife to begin ; but the
Court would not interfere with the arrangement
between counsel.
Mr. Forsyth accordingly proceeded, reminding
their lordships that Dr. Lane's honour, reputation,
domestic happiness, and means of existence were
at stake, and that this was the first time that he
had had an opportunity of being heard in his de-
fence. The journal of M 1 El. Robinson being no
evidence against Dr. Lane, he would at once dis-
miss it as not being in the case. Dr. Lane, a mar-
ried man, with a young wife, was accused of adul-
tery with a woman 50 years of age upon the weak-
est possible evidence. Dr. Lane, whom he hear-
tily regretted being unable to call, had a number
of female patients, with whom he was in the habit
of walking about the grounds, and there was no-
thing to show that he had ever been more attentive
to Mrs. Robinson—who, it must be remembered,
was an old acquaintance—than to any other lady
who resided in his house. The evidence of impro-
per familiarity was given by Levi Warren, whom
he would prove to be unworthy of credit.
Auguste Giet, a butler in the service of Dr.
Lane, was then called, and said that after Levi
Warren had been to London in 1856 he told witness
he had seen Mr. Field and Mr. Robinson in Lon-
don, and had told them he had never seen Dr. Lane
with his arm round Mrs. Robinson's waist. Warren
also told witness that he had never seen them in
that position. After Warren left Dr. Lane's ser-
vice he received two letters from him, in one of
which he asked him not to mention what he had
said about Dr. Lane if the case should ever be
brought into court. The witness further stated
that he had never noticed any improper behaviour
between Dr. Lane and Mrs. Robinson. The study
of Dr. Lane was used by the servants as a short
cut from the pantry to another part of the house.
Mrs. Suckling, who was staying as a patient at
Moor-park in September, 1854, said she remem-
bered Mrs. Robinson being there on a visit, and
there was certainly no difference between the
doctor's treatment of her and of any other lady.
Dr. Lane and his wife were on excellent terms.
She was about 25 years of age, and was a friend of
Mrs. Robinson. Dr. Lane walked about the
grounds with every patient, both ladies and gentle-
men, by turns. She had only seen him walking
with Mrs. Robinson once, and that was on the
terrace.
Lady Drysdale, the mother of Mrs. Lane, said
there had been great intimacy between the families
of Lane and Robinson. There was nothing in
the conduct of Dr. Lane towards Mrs. Robinson
at all different to his conduct towards other ladies.
She had often urged Dr. Lane to pay kind atten-
tion to Mrs. Robinson. She and Mrs. Lane always
knew when the doctor walked or drove out with
Mrs. Robinson. He was in the constant habit of
welking in the grounds with other ladies besides
Mrs. Robinson.
Cross-examined—Her daughter was a very sweet
tempered person, about 27 years old. She had no
cause for suspicion. She should say Mrs. Robin-
son was upwards of 50, but she was afraid to say
too much.
By the Court—She thought Mm Robinson had
an unhappy home. She was remarkably kind to
witness's little grandchildren, and that led to the

intimacy.
Mr. Reed, a surveyor, produced a plan of the
grounds at Moor-park, from which it appeared
that the summer-house referred to by the witness
Warren was not upon an island, and was close to
a path. He also stated that a person standing in
the position which Warren had described as occu-
pying could not see into the summer-house.
Dr. Mark Richardson, a retired surgeon in the
Bengal army, who was staying at Moor-park in
1856 and 1857, stated that Mrs. Robinson visited
there, and that he could not perceive the slightest
difference between Dr. Lane's treatment of her and
of other ladies.

Mr. Coleridge having summed up on the part o,
Dr. Lane, _

Dr. Phillimore addressed their lordships on the
part of Mrs. Robinson. The charge was that of
adultery with one person only, and the evidence
clearly established that that person had not been
guilty of adultery. Would it be reasonable, then,
to dismiss Dr. Lane from the suit, and declare him
innocent of the charge, yet to divorce Mrs. Robin-
son on the ground that she has committed
adultery ?

The Lord Chief Justice put
.the case of a wife
who confessed that she had committed adultery
with a certain person who was in reality innocent,
in order to conceal her real paramour.
Dr. Phillimore said the petitioner did not charge
adultery with- any one except Dr. Lane, and there-
fore by Dr. Lane's innocence or guilt he must stand
or fall.

Sir C. Cres3well said, if the confession would
have been evidence against the wife, supposing
the co-respondent had not been before the court,
how could the circumstances of his being before the
court make it no evidence against her ?
Mr. Justice Wightman said if both parties were
to make a separate confession the argument of the

learned counsel would go to the extent of exclud-
ing both confession,.

Dr. Pbillimore continued his argument, dwell-
ing upon the weakness of the oral evidence, by
which no proximate act whatever was proved. He
then referred to the fallacious character of journals
as compared with other confessions. For instance,
the journals of Horace Walpole contained many
statements which, as had since been proved, be
must have known to be false when they were writ-
ten. This journal had evidently been written by a
woman of so flighty, extravagant, excitable, ro-
mantic, and irritab!e a mind as almost to amount
to insanity. He should contend that it had been
written under the influence of a disease peculiar
to women, which had the effect of producing the
most extraordinary delusions upon the mind of the
patients, and frequently caused them to accuse
themselves of the most horrible crimes. The
learned counsel then read a number of extracts
from the diary consisting chiefly of self-accusations, •
of records of conversations on various subjects with
Dr. Lane and other persons, of her opinions on
poetry, phrenology, and other matters, and con-
taining frequent expressions of her disbelief in a
future state. There were also entries relating to
physical suffering for which she had ccinsulted and
been treated by medical men.
Dr. Joseph Kidd, the medical attendant of Mrs.
Robinson, described the malady under which she
was suffering, and said her mind was in a state
of morbid depression alternating with excitement.
Sir Charles Locock, Dr. Bennett, and Dr. Forbes
Winslow were then examined with regard to the
effect of the malady described by Dr. Kidd in pro-
ducing extraordinary delusions, but their evidence
was obviously not of a fit nature for a detailed re.
port.

Dr. Phillimore then proposed to examine the co-
respondent, Dr. Lane. He could have been ex-
amined in the Ecclesiastical Court, and their lord-
ships inherited all the power possessed by that
court.

Lord Chief Justice said the alleged adul-
terer was not a party to the suit in that court. By
the Evidence Act (14th and 15th Vict., cap. 99) no
patty to a suit in ..cases of adultery could be ex-
amined. By the Divorce Act the alleged adulterer,
who was before not a party, was made a party. He
was inclined, therefore, to think that the Court
had not power to examine Dr. Lane.

Dr. Phillimore said if their lordships' opinion
should be against him upon that point he should
pray that Dr. Lane be dismissed from the suit, in
order that he might then be examined on behalf of
Mrs. Robinson.

Dr. Addams and Mr. Karslake wore heard on
the other side, contending that Dr. Lane was sub-
stantially the principal defendant, and relying upon
the terms of the Evidence Act as excluding him
from being examined.
Their lordships took time -to consider their de•
cision upon this important point, and adjourned
until to-morrow (this) morning.

Country Markets.

LIVERPOOL, JUNE 15.

A very small attendance to-day, and the business done
was insignificant. Wheat and flour may be quoted at last
week's rates. Oats and oatmeal the turn lower. The same
remark applies to barley, beans, and peas. Yellow Indisu
corn was firmly held at late rates, but white was about
6d lower, prime northern being obtainable at 33s 6d per
qr., ex quay.