The Sun. — 1840-08-05 (London, England)

LAW OF EVIDENCE (SCOTLAND) BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the third reading of the Law of Evidence ( Scotland) Bill. The Earl of HADDINGTON opposed the motion. All ho asked of their Lordships was to inquire if it would be safe to introduce so much of the law of England, or any part of it, into the present system of judicature in Scotland. He moved that the Bill be read a third time this day three months. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the Bill had been introduced early in the Session, and had been subjected to investigation in Scotland, after which it had gone through Committee in this House. He could not, therefore, admit that it was proposed to pass it without inquiry. He did not know what could be gained by delay, except to defeat the Bill for the present Session. The Noble Earl could not say tha Bill had not been discussed, for on the question of the second reading, the Noble Earl, calculating upon a majority upon his own side of the House, which was always greater than he (the Lord Chancellor) could command upon his side, brought forward an amendment similar to his present one, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. But before the Noble Earl had concluded his arguments against the measure, his majorities, which were dwindling away during his speech, vanished_ from his sight, and the Noble Earl did not think proper to divide the House.—( Hear, hear.) Ile regarded the question as one of great importance to the administration of justice in Scotland, and he trusted that their Lordships would pass the Bill. The Marquis of NORM ANB Y, in support of the Bill, instanced the recent case of the Dalrymples, in which the only witnesses who could prove the mitigated character of an act of homicide, were relations of the accused, and incapacitated to give evidence in his favour. In that case he (the Marquis of Normanby) was induced by other circumstances to mitigate the sentence passed upon Dalrymple. But the whole of the facts were of such a nature as convinced him that the law ought to be altered, and he hoped the Bill would pass. Lord WHA RNCLIFFE would support the amendment, because the members of the Scotch bar were not prepared for the proposed alteration in the law of evidence ; and the whole subject required more consideration than had been given to it. The Earl of HADDINGTON said that the Faculty in Scotland had expressed themselves favourable to a modification of the existing law, but they never would consent to so sweeping an alteration as this Bill proposed. He repeated that all he asked fur was the delay of a few months to give time fur a full consideration of the subject. He should feel it his duty to divide the House. It had been said that the Bill passed the House of Commons without opposition. But that was not the fact, for it was very much resisted there, and by a gentleman who had filled the office of Lord Advocate.  Lord CLARENDON said that it was very irregular to refer to what had occurred in the House of Commons. After a few words further in explanation from the Earl of HA DDING TON, strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were, For the third reading Against it ... Majority —4 The Bill was then rcai a third time and passed. On the motion of the Earl of CLARENDON, the Railways Bill, after a few words from the Marquis of SALISIIUISV and Lord WIIARNCLIFFE, who supported the principle of the Bill, was read a second time. The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the railways had now a monopoly of the principal carrying trade throughout the country, and they ought to be placed more under the control of the Government than they were by this Hear.) They had driven all other carriers off the roads. Their bye-laws were not sufficient for the protection of the public, and the inspectors ought to have greater powers than the Bill gave them. Lord CLARENDON said that the Bill was only an experimental measure; and if it was not found to be sufficient, it would be amended and enlarged. The Earl of GLENG ALL said that the monopoly of the railways was intolerable. Nothing could be more scandalous than tue mode of car., ing goods under the present system. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday next.