rose to set himself right as to the bill. The third clause had been misunderstood, as having for the first time established the fact, that truth was a defence for libel. This was not so, and he wished to explain, that by the law at present, the truth was universally an answer to a prosecution for damages The third clause, therefore, would fetter the offer of truth as a defence in every case, unless some public good were to be obtained by the publication. He therefore, had advocated, not opposed, the liberty of the press.

was understood to say, that the omission of the third clause, as long as the ninth clause was retained, would tend to increase the number of criminal prosecutions as truth would no longer be a defence on such prosecutions.

expressed his astonishment that his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney-General) had taken any notice of the contemptible observation contained in a contemptible paper.

suggested, to his hon. Friend (Mr. Christie) that the bill should not be carried forward this Session. He thought the omission of the third clause had injured the bill, and he wished to have it restored; He moved, that the House disagree to the amendment omitting the third clause.

said, he objected to the bill, that it carried into effect a great alteration in the Law of Evidence. He was afraid, if criminals were allowed to give evidence, it would seriously affect the public mind, and make it doubt the administration of justice. He begged that the bill might be delayed till a full explanation were given of its probable effects.

said, at present by the law, with the exception of a statutable perjury, whenever a criminal had suffered his punishment, full competency was restored, and the criminal was qualified to give evidence both in new transactions and transactions which occurred before he committed his crime. That was the state of the law, but there was an anomaly. The criminal could not be called as a witness while he was suffering his punishment, and he did not know why a man who was suffering the last day of his imprisonment was not a competent witness to-day, but was such a witness to-morrow. He could not understand why that distinction should be continued. It seemed to him, that it ought either to be done away and the man be allowed to give evidence, or that criminals should be for ever excluded. He did not know on what principle a man should be disbelieved while he was undergoing his punishment, and believed, immediately after it was at an end. That would pre- vent all prisoners from giving evidence, and in case of a murder or other crimes committed in prison, there would be no other means of getting evidence than by pardoning the criminals, which was now the practice. He assured his hon. Friend that this bill only followed up many changes made many years ago. Formerly no man could be heard in a suit in which he had a personal interest, but that had been altered in many cases, and this bill would only remove an additional case of the same kind. Having given the bill much consideration, and made several amendments in it last year, it now had his most cordial support.

had doubts whether this was a useful measure, though he thought if the law of evidence were to be amended it could not be in better hands than those of the Chief Justice and his friends the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. If this bill were passed they must go a step further, and admit the plaintiff and defendant to give evidence, Already they admitted interested parties, and it was not to be supposed that, the formal insertion of the names of the plaintiff and defendant on the record should preclude them from that the advantage.

thought the Attorney-General had made out a strong case, and he should not be averse from taking the further step mentioned by the hon. Member. Several writers on evidence thought the parties should be examined.

gave his full approbation to the measure. At present the law did not exclude interested witnesses when their testimony was not of much value, but, it did exclude interested witnesses where it was most desirable to have their evidence. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to several cases in which under the law the most competent witnesses were excluded. He said, examine interested witnesses, and trust the jury, after a cross-examination, to form a proper judgment. The hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to several cases in which the pardon of the Crown was given in order to made criminals competent witnesses. If he were to oppose this bill on the ground that they must go further, it would be necessary to oppose every measure of improvement. He could not, therefore, do otherwise than give the bill his hearty support.

said, in the debate on the Irish Church, on the first of this month, he had made a statement from Parliamentary returns as to the actual revenue of the Established Church in Ireland, from which the statement made in answer by the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, differed by a sum of 120,000l. He believed, that since then circumstances had come to the knowledge of the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman, which induced them to think that, without any fault on the part of the commissioners in Dublin, the return made by them to the House, upon which the statement of the noble Lord was founded, was erroneous. As it was desirable that on so important a subject there should be no misapprehension, he begged to move for a return of the actual amount of the revenues of the Protestant establishment in Ireland, whether arising from episcopal lands, tithes, rent-charge, or any other source from which its emoluments were derived?

had no objection to the return in that shape.

said, he wished to ask a question of the Secretary for the Home Department in the absence of the President of the Board of Trade with respect to a very important subject, the price of bread in the metropolis. It was well known, that the bakers had within the last few weeks taken advantage of a small rise in the price of wheat, to effect a most exorbitant profit for themselves, by taking money out of the pockets of the poor. Although he was not an Anti-Corn-law Leaguer, he wished to see the poor enabled to eat their bread as cheap as they could, and, having suffered himself by the high price of bread, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not think it expedient to introduce some law or regulation by which the poor should be enabled to benefit by the alterations which might take place in the price of corn?

said, the question was a difficult one to answer, and he should have been quite unprepared for it, if something like the question in a newspaper that morning had not called his attention to it. As it was a question of policy rather than of fact, he must say, he had no great reliance on an assize of bread.

said, that he entirely despaired of the effect of a legislative remedy in regulating the price of bread. At the same time, he thought the fact to which his hon. Friend had called attention was a very remarkable one—namely, the great disproportion between the high price asked for bread in different places and the price of corn, and the advantage taken by the bakers of the rise of price. When a fall took place, there was no corresponding reduction. Though the Legislature might not be able to afford an effectual check to this, still he thought there might be a check if gentleman would not be ashamed to exert themselves in the matter, and refused to deal with all bakers excepting those who charged a fair price. That he believed would be an effectual mode of checking those who made extravagant charges. When, then, his hon. Friend was one of those who sanctioned and encouraged the evil of which he complained. The proper way would be to encourage tradesmen who did not ask an undue price.