said, he had prepared a draught of the amendment that he intended to move to the motion which the noble Lord opposite, the Secretary for the Home Department, had intimated his intention of submitting to the House on Monday next. It would be recollected, that in the early part of the week he (Sir R. Peel) had said, that on this day, or if possible earlier, he should, in order to prevent the House being taken by surprise, give notice of the amendment which he purposed moving to the motion on the subject of Ireland which stood for Monday. His intended amendment contained some reference to proceedings which had recently taken place before the other House of Parliament, and he was aware, that in point of form he could not deliver in a notice which referred to any proceedings of the Lords without the appointment of a committee to search the Lords' journals. He took for granted, that at a later period of that night the noble Lord would allow him to move for such committee; in the meanwhile he should, for the convenience of the House, read the notice of amendment which he intended to place upon the book. The right hon. Baronet read as follows:—

"Resolved—That, on the 13th day of March last, a Motion was made in this House for the production of various documents connected with the state of Ireland in respect to crime and outrage, including communications made to the Irish Government relating to offences connected with ribandism, and all memorials, resolutions, and addresses, forwarded to the Irish Government by magistrates, or other official persons, in respect of crimes and outrages committed in Ireland, and the answers thereto.

"That the period included within the returns so called for, extends from the commencement of the year 1835 to the present time; and that the motion made for the pro- duction of them was assented to by this House, no opposition to it having been offered on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

"That, on the 21st day of March last, the House of Lords appointed a Select Committee 'to inquire into the state of Ireland since the year 1835, in respect to crime and outrage, which have rendered life and property insecure in that part of the empire.'

"That, in consequence of the appointment of such Committee by the House of Lords, it has been proposed that this House should resolve, 'That it is the opinion of this House, that it is expedient to persevere in those principles which have guided the executive Government of Ireland of late years, and which have tended to the effectual administration of the law, and the general improvement of that part of the United Kingdom.'

"Resolved, That it appears to this House that the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry by the House of Lords, under the circumstances and for the purpose above-mentioned, does not justify Her Majesty's Ministers in calling upon this House without previous inquiry, or even the production of the information which this House has required, to make a declaration of opinion with respect to one branch of the public policy of the executive Government, still less a declaration of opinion which is neither explicit as to the principles which it professes to approve, nor definite as to the period to which it refers; and that it is not fitting that this House should adopt a proceeding which has the appearance of calling in question the undoubted right of the House of Lords to inquire into the state of Ireland in respect to crime and outrage, more especially when the exercise of that right by the House of Lords does not interfere with any previous proceeding or resolution of the House of Commons, nor with the progress of any legislative measure assented to by the House of Commons, or at present under its consideration."

then said, that as the right hon. Baronet opposite had determined to place upon record his sentiments respecting the intended motion of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, he thought it right to do the same. He gave notice, then, that in the event of the House adopting the motion of the noble Secretary, he should move as an addition thereto, that in the opinion of that House, it was expedient that such further reform be made in the representation of the people as would conduce to their contentment, and to the general security and welfare of the kingdom at large. As the party on the other side of the House had given their notice, he felt bound to give his on behalf of himself and others, as well in as out of that House.

said, that in laying on the Table, by command of her Majesty, certain papers relating to the taking a pilot out of the Express packet by the French force on the coast of Mexico, he wished to avail himself of the opportunity of stating, that the papers contained some communications that had passed with the French Government on the subject; they contained the statement of the officer in command of the packet with regard to the transaction, and a letter of Count Sebastiani, containing an explanation and apology, honourable alike to the Government offering, and to the Government receiving it, and having been offered without any official demand, it was, therefore, the more honourable and creditable to the French Government. Count Sebastiani, in his communication, stated, that he was charged by the King of the French to make known to the Government of her Britannic Majesty the deep regret which the King of the French felt at hearing of the removal of a Mexican pilot by his force from the British packet-ship the Express; and he also stated, that when Admiral Baudin unfortunately directed that step to be taken, he was not aware that the vessel belonged to the British marine force. This incident, therefore, had been the result of a mistake, and in no degree arose from any want of respect to the English flag. The affair was sincerely deplored by the King of the French and his Government, as well as by the commandant of the French squadron on the coast of Mexico, who expressed an anxious hope, that no error of the kind would occur again; and it was added, that the strictest instructions had been given for the most vigilant attention, which would prevent a similar occurrence. Count Sebastiani added, that he trusted this explanation would prove satisfactory to the British Government, and that nothing would ever disturb the harmony and union which now existed between the two countries, and which both Governments had so much at heart to maintain.

was understood to say, that he should propose a division of the measure into two bills; and he certainly thought, that if a Board of Commissioners were appointed to sit in Edinburgh for the regulation of jails in Scotland, they ought not to be invested with any greater powers than were absolutely necessary for insuring uniformity in the discipline of prisons in that part of the United Kingdom. It would be highly objectionable to take the control of local funds from the hands of those magistrates who had hitherto exercised it, and lodge it in a general board, and the whole expense of erecting the general prisons or penitentiaries should be defrayed by Government. If however, this could not be granted, he should propose, that instead of such general assessment of the expense, founded on very arbitrary rules, as would be fixed by the bill, all persons sent by the sentence of a court to one of these prisons, should be maintained in it at the expense of the district from which they were sent. This would obviate the very serious evil of imposing a heavy burden on parts of the country where crime was rare. If the hon. Gentlemen opposite would assent to neither of these suggestions, he must still urge, that instead of placing the whole money to be raised under the bill, amounting to 30,000l. per annum, at the disposal of a general board or of the inspectors of prisons, to be distributed at their discretion, without reference to the amount of crime in particular districts, it should be put under the management of local boards, subject to the superintendence of the general board. With respect to assessment, he thought he had the authority of hon. Gentlemen opposite, according to what they had stated last Session, for holding that the two objects of local and general assessment could not be effectually provided for in the same bill. He could assure the House, that he was most anxious for a measure of reform of the system of prisons in Scotland, and very unwilling to throw delays in the way of accomplishing that object. It was therefore only from a sense of paramount duty, that he moved that it be an instruction to the committee to divide the bill into two bills, if they think fit to do so.

said, that the hon. Baronet must excuse him if he doubted his sincerity when he said, that he advocated the principle of this bill, as his speech was undoubtedly directed against every clause of it. The hon. Baronet chiefly objected to the unconstitutional powers to be given to the board, but that objection was removed by the appeal to Parliament which the bill gave to any parties who might consider themselves injuriously affected by the operations of the board, The hon. Baronet also said, that the Board would be composed of some of the Judges of the Court of Session, who from the pressure of their other avocations would not be able to attend to the duties connected with it; but those avocations were not so severe as to prevent them from giving half an hour of their time once or twice a week to the duties required under this bill. He could not agree to the proposition of the hon. Baronet, and must give it his opposition.

denied, that the gentlemen of Scotland had been neglectful of the state of prisons there, and every county would show, that large sums of money had been laid out in the improvements of gaols. He admitted, however, that what had been done had not been done upon a good principle, and therefore, he was very anxious, that every thing should be done under the direction of a board properly constituted. He thought it would have been much better, that upon this subject two bills should have been brought in, instead of the one now before the House, but still he would not divide the House upon an opposition to it.

said, that as he had paid some attention to the subject, he hoped he might be allowed to make some observations on the present occasion. There was a great difference between the systems of Scotch and English prisons. In this country the whole of the prisons were supported out of the county funds; but the object of the hon. Baronet was to have the Scotch prisons maintained by the public generally. The whole sum in dispute was 30,000l.; and for this sum, which would not amont to one penny in the pound, the hon. Baronet would risk this bill. As penitentiaries were required in Scotland for the accommodation of Scotch offenders, it was clear, that the expense of such prisons ought to fall upon the landed interest; and as there was no possibility of ascertaining the real state of crime in Scotland, it was no valid objection to the present measure, that they were unable to define the particular amount which must be paid by each district. For his own part, he thought, that this bill would be a great advantage to Scotland, and therefore he should give it his cordial support.

said, that great injustice had been done to the gentry of Scotland, when it was said, that they had done nothing for the prisons of that country, and this would be apparent when he stated, that from the year 1819 down to the present time they had expended no less a sum than 66,000l. on the improvements of the prisons of that country, He did not object to the proposed central board; on the contrary, it might be advantageous; but what he feared was that placing such extensive powers in their hands would operate unfairly on the different counties, by making those counties where prisons were carefully managed contribute to the support of the prisons of other counties, in which there might be an improvident expenditure. He objected to taxation without representation, and therefore he thought, that though it might be proper to place the penitentiaries under the control of a general board, it would be most unfair to take the government of the county prisons out of the hands in in which they were now placed. On the whole he approved of dividing the bill into two bills.

thought there might be an advantageous division of the prisoners detained on charges before trial, and those confined afterwards. Those detained in custody before trial, ought to share in various advantages which those kept in custody afterwards ought not to have. That was the only advantage that could be derived from dividing the bill into two parts. Under the superintendence of the board, such prisons would be erected as were necessary. He was glad that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock was not against the tax. The purpose they all had in view—namely, the better regulation of prisons, would not be attained by dividing the bill into two. There were great objections to dividing the bill into two; in the first place, only one might pass, and the Members for England might not be disposed to advance 10,000l. without security that the other bill would pass to provide adequate prison accommodation for other parts of Scotland.

regretted exceedingly that the proposition of his hon. Friend below (Sir G. Clerk) was not acceded to. The gentlemen of Scotland were very desirous to have good prison accommodation provided. Many districts had already assessed themselves for that purpose, and they were extremely anxious that those who had not done so should be compelled to do so; and he had no doubt, therefore, if his hon. Friend would provide a bill for that especial purpose, but that he would pass it. The hon. Member talked of district prisons. Let each district pay for its prisons; but why tax a distant district for prisons in which it had no benefit? He contended that the jail of Perth, if properly fitted up, would answer all the purposes required, and provide sufficient accommodation for the prisoners, without going to the expense of 30,000l. in fitting up prisons. If the hon. Member the Under Secretary of State was not prepared to divide the bill into two, let the bill compel those who had not hitherto provided prisons to provide them.

rose with reluctance, to bring forward the amendment, of which he had given notice, because he was quite aware that this measure had already received very considerable discussion; but he conceived it to be his duty to use his best endeavours to prevent this bill passing further than it had done just now, without they were assured, at the same time, that when increasing the salaries of the judges, they should have a thorough reform of those courts over which they presided. The hon. Member moved, "that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct an enquiry to be made by persons unconnected with Scotland—first, into the nature and extent of the duties incumbent on the thirteen judges of the Supreme Court in Scotland, keeping in view the short period those judges sit on the bench, the great length of the vacations they enjoy, and the continious large decrease of suits tried before them. Secondly, whether one Court of Review, consisting of four judges, instead of two Review Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction under eight judges, as at present, would not facilitate the ends of justice in the Supreme Court of Scotland, and effect a saving to the country of 14,000l. a-year. Thirdly, whether substantial and more speedy justice would be insured to the people of Scotland by extending the Sessions of the Supreme Court from five to eight months of the year, and the sittings of the judges from less than two hours to five hours daily, with the substitution of oral for written evidence, and an increase of viva voce procedure."

in seconding the amendment, said, that he really had hoped, after all that had passed, both in and out of that House, some notice would have been taken of the statements that had gone forth with reference to the capacities and efficiency of the present bench of judges in the Supreme Court. He regretted extremely that her Majesty's Government, who had heard the statements over and over again reiterated, had not thought it proper to make some inquiry into the facts of the case, or into the truth of allegations which represented those in whose favour hon. Members were then called upon to vote a heavy addition to the public expenditure, as drawbacks, rather than otherwise, on the due administration of justice in Scotland. He still more regretted that his hon. Friend, the Member for Aberdeen, was not then found in his place, to persist in the motion of which he had given notice on a former occasion, for a Commission to examine into the efficiency of the judges. In reference to a remark which had fallen from the hon. Baronet, the Member for Stamford, on a former debate, when he said that actions for libel would have been brought against the authors of those statements, had they not been protected by the privileges of that House, he begged then to state to the hon. Baronet, that if he wished it, he (Mr. Ellice) would at any time direct his attention to statements made in the public press going far beyond, in detail and assertion, any thing that had passed in Parliament. He begged to ask the hon. Baronet whether, as it was currently reported, the friends of the learned judges who had been alluded to, had not had a meeting with reference to the proposed prosecution of a newspaper which contained one of those articles, and whether the idea of prosecuting had not been at once abandoned, on account of the unanimous opinion of the meeting, that they had no chance of obtaining a verdict in their favour? He begged to assure the House, that although he stood alone, as it appeared he then did, in that matter, exposed to much animadversion both there and elsewhere, he still did not repent having brought, what he considered a great public grievance, under the attention of the House. He could only regret that other hon. Members, who he knew were well aware of the existence of those grievances, had not thought themselves in a condition to come forward and give him their assistance in endeavouring to obtain redress. This being, however, not the case, and knowing that he alone could do no good in moving for a Commission similar to that which had been formerly suggested by hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, which would be opposed generally by both sides of the House, he would not trouble the House farther, merely contenting himself with recording his decided opinion on the subject. He then begged to second the amendment of his hon. Friend, the Member for Greenock, which, however, only referred to the system of judicature in Scotland

opposed the amendment. He did not mean to say, that the system of judicature which was in operation in Scotland, was altogether free from defects. Ever since he had been in that House he had been studiously anxious to do every thing in his power to improve the system, and much of late had been done to remedy the defects which were acknowledged to exist. But, while he stated thus much, he was bound to say, that the system which the hon. Gentleman so decidedly opposed, had met with the approbation of some of the most eminent lawyers in England, and had received the sanction of an Act of Parliament. He could not see how the hon. Gentleman opposite could refuse to make a necessary addition to the salaries of the Scotch Judges, considering that the salaries of the English Judges had been increased, and considering also the great reduction which had been made in the annual expense of the system of judicature established in Scotland. By the reductions which had taken place, upwards of 50,000l. had been saved, and the suitors also had been largely benefited, as the fees of the Court had been diminished about 14,000l. But this was not all. He was of opinion, that the vacations were longer than, perhaps, they ought to be, and, accordingly, the bill before the House made essential alterations in regard to this part of the system. By the bill a power was given by which the judges, when necessary, would be empowered to sit for two months longer than the period allowed by the former Act. With regard to the jury system in civil cases, he would only say, that he was fully persuaded, that the more it was known the more it would rise in the estimation of the people of Scotland, and that, in the end, it would be universally approved of.

said, that the ground upon which the hon. Member for St. Andrews founded his complaints against the Court of Session before the Committee which sat to inquire into this subject, rested upon the evidence of a Mr. Campbell, the editor of a certain law journal, and of another person who had been under clerk in the Court of Session. But when he (Sir W. Rae) came to examine those gentlemen, they broke down in their evidence most completely, as was proved by the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee. What his right hon. and learned Friend was now doing, was but an act of justice to the individuals who now sat upon the bench, and to the country itself. He had himself seen the Lord President of the Court of Session obliged to go to a court in a hackney coach. No large fortunes were made at the Scotch bar, and the only way in which the judges could provide for their families, was by insuring their own lives.

supported Mr. Wallace's motion. He observed, that the House had not too much popularity to lose, and he thought the passing of the present measure would by no means increase it. The judges were paid smaller salaries when they had less business before them, and living was more expensive. Notwithstanding the reductions for which credit had been taken in the abolition of other courts, the business before the Court of Session had continued to decrease. The average number of cases enrolled for the four years previous to the passing of the Judicature Act in 1825, was 2,143. By a return for the year 1833, the number was 2,031; and by a similar return for the past year, it was 1,486; thus exhibiting a diminution of about a third. Much had been said of the saving created by the reduction; but that saving was owing to retiring allowances, and other circumstances more prospective than immediate. It was notorious that the judges had but five months of session, while they had seven of vacation, and that even during session the judges of the inner house sat on an average only an hour and a-half per day. Previously to 1810, the salaries of the judges were 1,280l. per annum, and at that time they were raised on account of the high price of provisions and other necessaries. Circumstances had, since that time, been favourable to persons enjoying fixed incomes. That was the dearest period of the war. There had since been a reduction of rents, a fall in the price of provisions, and a spirit of economy introduced, which was to be extended to every class except the favoured Edinburgh lawyers. Much had been said of the pro- priety of giving such salaries as would tempt eminent lawyers to accept of seats on the bench. The practical working, even, of the present system had been, that the bench drained the bar of its talent.

entirely agreed in the bill in all its parts. There was no necessity for any further inquiry whatever. Whether the bill was popular or unpopular he did not care, as it was but a bare act of justice to individuals and to the public.

moved to insert the following words, "And whereas the number of causes tried has of late years been materially diminished, and is now in progress of diminution."

objected to the amount, and proposed 4,300l.

said, it had been his intention to propose a lower sum at first; but he thought it better to adopt a general principle, and he had been assured that there would be no objection to 3,000l. for the puisne judges. By analogy, the sum of 4,800l. would bear the same proportion to 3,000l. as existed between the puisne and chief judges in England.

said, the House had been led to expect that the puisne judges' salaries would be 2,600l. A proposition had been made to raise them to 3,000l., provided certain reforms accompanied the rise; and he had agreed to it, on condi- tion that there should be an inquiry into the question as to the number of judges required for Scotland. But the Government had made an advance on the terms they had themselves proposed, which were 2,600l. for the puisne judges, leaving the chief judges as they stood—namely, the Lord President 4,300l., and the Lord Justice-Clerk, 4,000l.

defended the advance. Nothing now was left to excite the emulation of the Scottish bar but these two chief judgeships. He thought the Lord President should have 5,000l.

proposed to insert a proviso in it, empowering the Crown to call on any judge who had retired upon a pension upon the ground of ill health, to resume his duties as soon as it appeared that he was in a condition to do so. The hon. Member mentioned the case of Sir Archibald Campbell as an instance of a judge, who after quitting the bench, had been quite restored to health, and was now as capable as ever he had been of exercising the judicial functions.

begged to observe that the public would feel much discontent that no statement had been made by the right hon. Gentleman of the objects of the committee, and that the country would view with anxiety and alarm the appointment of such a committee without a statement of its precise objects. He had informed the right hon. Gentleman in private, and he repeated it there, that he had hoped the defect of last night would have been remedied, and that he would have given that night the fullest information to the House.

said that it was not his fault that the hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with what he had stated to the House relative to the objects of this committee. The House had agreed to the appointment of the committee; and he must say that this course was not adopted by him from any choice of his own, but it had been pressed upon him; and as to the charge of an absence of statement, and of surprise, he could only add, that the hon. Gentleman differed from those hon. Members who did attend to what he last night said. He had, however, no objection to repeat what he had said. The object of the committee was to inquire into the regulations which might have been adopted under the bills which had been passed by Parliament, to see whether the powers which had been entrusted to the railroads by Parliament had been advantageously exercised, whether any amendment could be made, and, if so, whether an opportunity might not be taken of introducing into the bills, so many of which were now passing, such regulations as the Parliament should seem fit. He had stated that it was not his wish that the committee should not be considered as hostile to the railroads, but he thought that an inquiry might benefit equally the public and the parties concerned in the railroads themselves. These were the objects that he had in view in moving for the committee.

was very sorry to be obliged to trespass upon the attention of hon. Members; but his excuse was this, that had he understood that the subject was to have been brought on, upon the preceding night, he certainly should have felt it to be his duty to be in attendance. The subject having been brought on the night before, he believed, arose from a misunderstanding. He did not say with whom the misunderstanding had arisen. He took it that the misunderstanding was on his own part; but then he had to say, that but for the misunderstanding he should have been present and made some remarks upon the appointment of the committee. He decidedly objected to the appointment of any such committee; he objected to it upon principle. He thought that it was a most undue, improper, and wanton interference with capital. He had not yet heard a single public ground stated on which such a proposition could rest. What object could the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade mean by the appointment of such a committee? What information did he require of which he was not already in possession? Did he wish to know the regulations? Did he wish to understand the nature of these companies? Did he desire to know what powers the railways possessed? If this were all that was wanted in a committee, then the right hon. Gentleman had no necessity for a committee, for he had nothing to do but to ascertain it all by documentary evidence which was then in the possession of the House. And, then, as to the postponement of the railway bills, he must say that he did not see any necessity for pursuing any such course. There was nothing to prevent those bills going to a third reading, and if the House were disposed to have any clause subsequently introduced, it had full power to introduce such a clause. But he wanted to know what were the public grounds for this committee? What were the public grievances which compelled the appointment of any such committee. They saw the advantages of capital being embarked in these undertakings. They did not see any public evils which had arisen from them. He said this, as he had not any thing embarked in these railways—he had no interest in them beyond a mere trifle; and he believed that no one had embarked less in them than himself. This being his situation with respect to railways, he said, that unless some public evil arose out of these great undertakings, the House ought to be very cautious how, by any interference upon its part, it fettered the application of capital. It had not been shown that there had been, on the part of the railways, any interference with fair competion—no such thing had been shown or attempted to be shown on the part of the managers of the railways. What railway, he asked, had yet returned a remunerating profit for the capital embarked? He had heard, undoubtedly, of high premiums upon shares; but then he did not see actual profits divided. This, at least, was certain, that no profits had been made at the expense of the public. But then it might be asked had not the public gained considerable advantage by them? The companies' interest was bound up with that of the public. The interest of the public was theirs, and could not be separated. Another objection that he had to the appointment of the committee was that it interfered with the capital so embarked: but a more practical objection that he offered to the committee was, that no public ground had been laid for it, nor had he heard of any attempted to be laid by his right hon. Friend in the appointment of the committee. Had his right hon. Friend any plan to propose? Had he any principle to lay down? Had he any single defined object in view? Did he mean to say that he would limit profits? Did he mean to exercise a control over the carriages? or did he mean to interfere with the by-laws of the companies? These were matters which the public were entitled to know before Parliament tampered with a subject of such importance. Before any thing like this was done, the public had a right to know what was the object in view in appointing a committee.