Star.
London, England, 1818-05-21 00:00:00

... - .` \ b

" .

directed to cause tos.fre, made out, and presented to
Iltluse s
wleks. after the commence-o
a,r, „i, .t'6'
3!"- of Parliament, a list of i
statutes as the t:ouri. in Scotland considered to ,
:allen into desuetude, Ana no longer binding on
inhabitants of that part of the Empire, together
a state. ent of the authorities on which they
!tided such opinions.
.r. BRAGGE BATHURST said it was not ne-
cessary to have such a return as the Right Honour-
- Baronet had moved for, if he wished to intro
any Bill to alter what was considered to be the
, in Scotland, with respect to desuetude. He ob-
(octed also to the language of the motion.
Mr. AIIERCROMBY said, that the question be-
-e the House was, whether any other body than
Lezislative had the power to repeal the law of
lan !? The Scotch Judges had been of opinion,
Statutes that had never been repealed might be
:garded as annulled. It was expedient that the
louse should know what laws were in that state and
weue not. The Scotch Judges were bound to
the principle on which they had proceeded.—
, opinion had been given on the subject by the
House of Lords. .

Mr. %V. DUNDAS thought that the motion would
throw a great deal of trouble upon the Court of Ses-
Part of the information requited was desirable,
. it might be obtai.ted in a less objectionable way.
Lord A. HAMILTON supported the motion. The
information required was of the utmost importance ;
it involved the elective franchise of the first cities of
Scotland—of Aberdeen and.of Edinburgh itself.
Lord BINNING opposed the motion on the ground
the information required was unnecessary to the
.tent demanded by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J.
Newport.) A declaratory or enacting law, as the
might require, would be sufficient to answer all
purposes of the motion. In place of that, the
Court of Session was to be called upon for a cum-
brous and useless return. The second part of the mo-
namely,
alder to have gone into desuetude, it was impoo.
'le to comply with; 'because the Court could not
ide until cases came before them, whether a law
d become desuete or not.
Mr. J. P. GRANT had no objection to have in-
'-y made, that it might be ascertained what laws
become desuete, and what ought to be repealed.
doctrine of desuetude in Scotland was founded

Ton the law of Rome, in the times of her greatest
Liberty. He would support the motion, so far as it
reerded matter of fact, that was, so far as it re-
wed a return of those laws actually declared by
Court of Session to be desziete. He objected to that

„girt of the motion which required the Court to de-
clare what they consider to be desuete.
Mr. BOSWELL expressed his gratitude to the
fight Honourable Baronet for bringing befcre the
louse the monstrous fact, that the promulgation of
• Statutes of Scotland was a snare rather than a

darning. lf, as it was contended, the Lords of
Session could not state what laws were in desuetude,
how were his Majesty's subjects, who were to obey
laws, to form a judgment ?—(hear, hear.) The
rule of law had arisen from the negligent framing of
.4 Statutes, and the inattention of the Legislature of
:otland ; but it was time it should be put an end to.
Mr. WYNN approved of the motion. He thought
quite as much a matter of course that the House
should, in some way or other, inquire into the laws
lien into desuetude, as into the expired and expiring
ws in this country.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that it would be im-
proper to call the Judges to make a report in a Mi-
nisterial capacity, which they would afterwards be
called on to reconsider in their judicial case. He
thought a better proposition would be to refer the
übject to a Committee or a Commission.
Sir S. ROMILLY said, to that part of the motion
which required an account of the laws which had
been decided to have fallen into disuetude, there
'ould be no such objection as that stated by the No-
- Lord (Castlereagh). It was a mere question of fact.
is rest of the motion he agreed should be omitted.
Lord CASTLEREAGH stated that the Judges of
t Court of Session were too much occupied in the
performance of their judicial functions to prepare
such a return as that which was required by the mo-
tion. The Noble Lord concluded with moving the
previous question.
Sir S. ROMILLY observed, that whether a Com-

aittee or a Commission were appointed, still the in-
formation required could only be had from the
-sages ; and, therefore, it was better to apply for that
~,rination to the Judges at once than to seek for it
ough a circuitous route.
Sir J. NEWPORT remarked, that as the Judges
England were frequently applied to for legal in-
.rmation to guide the judgment of Parliament, he
Id not concei?e the ground upon which a similar
,:plication to the Judges of Scotland should be
6.:,:med so very troublesome.
Sir J. NEWPORT said, he should decline to press
house to a division, in the hope that as the atten-
m of the House was drawn to a practice which no
one attempted to defend, Ministers would them-
lves bring forward some remedy for such an evil.
Lord CASTLEREAGH stated, that he was not
possession of the information necessary to form
ty opinion as to the merits of the case; and, there-
(ore, that he could not pledge himself dr his Majesty's
linisters to take any proceeding upon the subject.
Messrs. ABERCROMBIE and J. P. GRANT ex-
messed a hope that this discussion would be produc-
ive of great good upon this important question.
Sir J. NEWPORT sai3, that if nothing were pro-
posed in this case, by his Majesty's Ministers, at an,
early period of the next Session, he should himself
feel it his duty to submit to the House a distinct mo-
lon upon the subject.
The previous question was carrird.
WEST INDIA SLAVES.

Sir S. ROMILLY moved for a Copy of the Opi-
ion of the Attorney-General of the Island 'of Domi-
Ica in March, 1817, with respect to the power of
the Goverr.or of that Island to liberate slaves con-
demned by their masters to work in chains upon the
)üblic works; together with a Copy of the case or
...itter upon which the opinion of the Attorney-Gene-
ral was founded.
Mr. MARRYAT observed, that the liberation of
such persons as the motion referred to was clearly
contrary to law, for why should any Governor have
the power of depriving a proprietor of a contrvttl•