said, that it appeared from the papers before the House on secondary punishments and transportation, that Norfolk Island was to be abandoned as a penal settlement. He wished to learn from the Under Secretary for the Colonies what it was intended, in that ease, to do with Norfolk Island? Was it still to be retained as a British possession, and, if so, in what manner?

could only inform the noble Lord that when the present Lieutenant Governor of Van Diemen's Land left this country, he took with him a discretionary power to break up the establishment at Norfolk Island. Of course no tidings of what had been done had yet been received from the Lieutenant Governor, so that it was out of his power to say more than that the matter was left to the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor.

, pursuant to notice, rose to propose the Members of the Committee on the Holyhead Harbour Bill.

thought that some reason should be given for the appointment of this Committee before the report of the Commission which had lately examined the subject was produced. Sir John Ronnie, and other engineers of equal eminence, would prove that the cost of this harbour would be at least 2,000,000l., and that it would, after all, be inefficient as a harbour of refuge. He hoped the House would not sanction any further proceeding on this Bill, without having the report of the Commission before them. It would be improper to take any step in a matter involving such a vast expenditure of public money without having full information. He most decidedly objected to the appointment of the Committee before they had the report of the Commission before them, and with that view he should move as an Amendment that the debate be adjourned to this day fortnight.

said, the object of appointing the Committee was, that they should investigate most closely all the facts of the case which his hon. Friend had assumed. He did not wish the House to proceed before the report of the Commission was before them. It would be presented on Thursday next, and the House would have ample time to consider it. He had deferred the appointment of the Committee to the last minute, and the names he proposed were those of members of all parties.

thought the observations of the hon. Member for Coventry quite unfounded. He believed it was sufficiently established that Holyhead harbour would make one of the best stations for a harbour of refuge on the coast of Great Britain; and so far from the amount required being so enormous as was represented, the contractor had already engaged to complete the harbour for a sum considerably less than the engineer's estimate.

expressed doubts as to whether Holyhead harbour was the best station that could be found for a harbour of refuge for the shipping of Liverpool and other ports, though it was excellently adapted for a packet station. For the former purpose it was possible that a better harbour might be found on the coast of Carnarvonshire. He thought, therefore, the opposition of the hon. Member a very reasonable one, and that the Committee should not be nominated until the report and evidence taken by the Commission were before the House.

said, the only question was, whether the arrangement made by the preceding Government should be carried out, or whether there were grounds for the House to pause before fulfilling it? If Holyhead did not possess the advantages supposed to belong to it, Government had no wish to press the matter.

observed, that there never was a question more fully considered than this, whether or not Holyhead was entitled to a preference over any neighbouring port in facilitating the intercourse between this country and Ireland. The late Administration had sent two very eminent men, one connected with civil engineering, the other with the Admiralty, for the purpose of making a report on that question. They inquired into the subject most minutely, and made a report decidedly in favour of Holyhead. There was some little imputation, resting upon the slightest grounds, as to their partiality. Two others wore therefore appointed, who made a report to the same effect, decidedly in favour of Holyhead; and he was not sure whether there was not a third inquiry. Here then were three inquiries within the last few years; at least he was quite certain that there were two, which both resulted in favour of that site. He was bound to say that he thought the reasons for selecting Holyhead were quite decisive.

said, the report of the Commissioners first appointed had been very much questioned, as they were supposed to have neglected the duty of per- sonally examining the site. Those interested, therefore, applied for a further investigation, which had lately taken place. He thought it rather premature to nominate a Committee for the purpose of going into the subject previously to the report of the Commission being laid on the Table, particularly when it involved such an enormous outlay as would be required to form a harbour at Holyhead. He had no hesitation in saying that the sum already expended on it was not much more than half of what would be needed. It was questionable whether they could get anchorage in the bay of Holyhead free from impediment for six yards together.

said, the question was not whether Holyhead harbour was the best site for a harbour of refuge or not, but whether the House was in a condition to appoint this Committee or not? His hon. Friend asked for time to enable the House to read the evidence before the Commission. If it were necessary to appoint a Committee, he objected to the manner in which it was proposed to be done. He thought the whole proceeding quite irregular, and should certainly insist that no Member be appointed on the Committee who could not make that declaration which was exacted in the case of Railway Bills—that he had no personal interest in the matter. He was told that there were Members to be named on the Committee who had a direct interest in the report.

had applied to the Speaker for directions how to nominate the Committee. There had been two or three similar Bills already before the House, and the precedents had been strictly followed in this case. He had consulted the Speaker as to the local Members to be put on the Committee, and particularly as to the only point on which anything like a complaint was made, that one might be said to have a personal interest in the decision of the question. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was, "As he is the only representative of Anglesea we have in the House, it would not be proper, according to the regulations followed in such cases, to exclude him."

wished to state, that the appointment of the Committee was strictly in accordance with former precedents. Whenever a Bill had been before the House, which was partly of a public and partly of a private nature, the rule always had been that the Committee appointed to report on it should be composed partly of Members in different public departments, partly of Members who represented local interests, and that the remaining Members should be chosen by the Committee of Selection under the ordinary rules followed in the appointment of Committees.

thought the House should have the evidence taken by the Commission before them, in order to form a correct opinion. The questioa not only regarded a packet station, but a large harbour of refuge; and they must consider whether, when they had spent the money, they would not merely have enclosed a space full of rocks, liable to be shut up, and open to many other objections. He thought, therefore, the hon. Member for Coventry had very fair grounds for asking to see the evidence before he was called upon to say who should be the judges to decide the question.

said, he had no wish whatever himself to serve on the Committee; but he wished to remind hon. Members, that when the Commission was appointed, it was upon a declaration from the Secretary of the Admiralty that it was to be a final settlement of the questian. The report of the first Commission was demurred to; the present Government yielded, and granted the last Commission. The House, therefore, was not to consider whether the Commission had done right in adopting a particular plan. If the whole question were to be re-opened, let it not be done by a sidewind.

said, a distinct engagement had been given by Government that no further steps should be taken with respect to this Bill until the report of the Commission was in the hands of Members. At the same time he should offer no opposition to the appointment of the Committee, on the understanding that they were not to proceed until the House had the reports before them, and time were allowed for examining the evidence.

said, that he understood it to be the intention of the Government to substitute for transportation some system of imprisonment and compulsory labour either here or abroad, and exile. Now sentence of transportation might be passed upon offenders for seven, ten, fourteen, fifteen, twenty, or twenty- one years, or for life; and he wished to know if the Government intended to substitute some fixed and specific period of imprisonment, compulsory labour, and exile, having reference to the graduated scale of sentences of transportation, or whether the period of punishment was to have reference to the circumstances of each case?

, as was understood, said he had before stated, that it was the intention of the Government that the minimum and maximum of the term should have respect to the term of transportation; but that it should be in the power of the convict, by his own good conduct, to shorten the term of his punishment.

wished to put a question to the Government with respect to the fleet now engaged on the shores of Portugal. It had been the practice in the military and naval services that the superior officer present should take the command of the whole fleet in joint operations of Allied Powers. Now he apprehended that in the case of joint operations in Portugal, the Lord High Admiral of France would he the superior officer, and he wished to know whether in that case the British and Spanish fleet would be under the command of the Prince de Joinville?

said, there had been no arrangement, that he was aware of, to put the naval forces of the different nations under the command of a single officer. On the contrary, orders had been given to Sir William Parker, that he was not to take the command of the French or Spanish fleet, although, no doubt, they would pay every respect to any orders he might give. With regard to the Prince de Joinville, he had heard nothing to induce him to believe that the Prince was about to proceed to the coast of Portugal, and therefore no question arose about his assuming the command.

, alluding to the inconvenience arising out of the present mode of holding elections in Ireland, and particularly the duration of the polling, inquired if the Government were inclined to take the subject into consideration.

The subject had been deliberated upon by the Government, and he confessed that as regarded counties, there would be considerable difficulty in shortening the duration to one day by the appointment of a greater number of polling places, without at the same time making important alterations in the whole of the election system of Ireland. He regretted it had not been in the power of the Government, owing to the pressure of Irish business this Session, to introduce any measure to the House involving the whole of the electoral system of Ireland. With respect to the boroughs of Ireland, however, the case was somewhat different, and he entertained hopes that it might be possible to introduce a Bill for limiting the duration of elections to one day. He hoped to introduce a measure which should receive the assent of both sides of the House.

wished to trespass upon the House for a short time, upon a personal matter arising out of the Motion he had made on Tuesday night last. The noble Lord had intimated that the Government had reason to expect that he (the Earl of Lincoln) would bring before the House the subject of colonisation in the form proposed by Mr. Godley. The statement was then made in a form which did not require any immediate reply from him; but since then a statement had been made elsewhere distinctly and explicitly, that the deputation had stated to the Government that they had been formally authorized to inform them, that in the event of their (the Government) declining to accede to the bringing forward of that plan, he would himself bring it forward. If by that assertion it had been intended to imply that he had brought forward his Motion in a hostile spirit to the Government, or had framed it so as to deceive them, he begged to give that assertion his most explicit denial. From the first, he had stated to Mr. Godley and the other gentlemen forming that deputation, that his object was not to bring his plan before the Government, but one of an entirely different nature; and he then stated the form in which he intended to bring forward his Motion, and he had never altered the form. There were witnesses to what he had said. ["Hear!"] The right hon. Member for Coventry was good enough to intimate by that cheer that he recollected the circumstance. So much as regarded himself. But there was another person who was more interested in the matter, a gentleman who was not a Member of that House, and on that very account the House would be the more disposed to render him indulgence. He alluded to Mr. Godley himself; for the charge implied falsehood on the part of that gentleman and the others who had waited upon the noble Lord. The noble Earl read a part of a letter which he had received that morning from Mr. Godley, in which he explicitly denied the representation that had been made, that the deputation had asserted that they were formally authorized by Lord Lincoln to state that he would bring forward Mr. Godley's plan, and stating that what he (Mr. Godley) really said was, that Lord Lincoln intended to bring the subject of colonisation before Parliament, and that he (Mr. Godley) had written a letter to the Spectator, in which he said that he believed Lord Lincoln would not oppose his plan. He regretted that Mr. Godley, a public-spirited gentleman, who had devoted his time and attention in the most liberal and patriotic manner to bringing this subject before the Government, with no ill-feeling towards that Government, but with a desire to serve his country, should have been subjected to such discourteous flippancy as had been evinced towards him a few nights ago. And this he said without reference to the merits or demerits of Mr. Godley's plan. Unfortunately his noble Friend the Member for Devonshire was absent from town; but the hon. Member for Kerry was in his place, and, in justice to Mr. Godley, would no doubt confirm his statement.

said, the fact was, that two subjects were talked of when the deputation went to the Colonial Office—one being Mr. Godley's plan, and the other a Commission of Inquiry on the subject of colonisation; and the deputation had said, that if the Government did not feel themselves authorized to institute an inquiry of that kind, the noble Lord opposite would bring the matter before the House—that was, the subject of colonisation, and not Mr. Godley's plan.

said, that what had been stated by the hon. Member for Kerry was in perfect conformity with his own recollection. There were two questions spoken of at that meeting; one was Mr. Godley's plan—and Mr. Godley deserved great praise for the talent and industry with which he had prepared that plan— and the other question was a Commission to inquire into the subject of colonisation. It did not appear that Mr. Godley's plan had been urged as one that ought to be adopted by the Government; but it had been urged that a Commission ought to be appointed by the Government. When he (Lord J. Russell) informed the deputation that it was not his intention to appoint a Commission, he had understood from Mr. Godley that then the subject would be brought forward by the noble Lord in the House of Commons. He (Lord John Russell) had been left in doubt whether it was Mr. Godley's plan or the appointment of a Commission that was meant; but he never had had a suspicion that the noble Lord was about to bring forward Mr. Godley's plan. The noble Lord gave his notice, and he (Lord John Russell) understood from that that the Motion was to be a general one, such as the noble Lord had afterwards made. He (Lord John Russell) did not know that he had ever said anything different to what he was now stating. He had never understood that the noble Lord was to bring forward Mr. Godley's plan; but his impression had been, that if the Government did not appoint a Commission, then the noble Lord was to bring forward a Motion on the subject, without pledging himself to any specific plan.

appealed to the learned Lord for precedence; and consent having been given, he returned thanks for the courtesy, and proceeded to say that the subject he was about to bring under the notice of the House had excited deep interest and sympathy. He should make his statement as short as was consistent with clearness, and should avoid making any charge, attack, or accusation upon any person. His only object was, to clear the character of a gentleman who for many years had represented the Northern Division of Warwickshire with great credit to himself and benefit to the public service. He had been also for many years chairman of the quarter-sessions in Warwickshire, and had enjoyed the full confidence, support, and approbation of the magistrates who had acted with him. Although that person was now beyond the roach of human applause or sympathy, there yet remained a mourning widow and an afflicted family, for whose sake he (Mr. Spooner) asked the attention of the House. He trusted to be able to show, by a simple statement of facts, that a charge which had been made was unfounded. The mystery of the despatch in which that charge had been made, had given rise to many surmises which wore wholly without foundation. To his dying hour he (the late Sir Eardley Wilmot) had never known the particulars of the charge made against him, or who were the persons who, behind his back, had reported that which he (Mr. Spooner) had no hesitation in saying would prove to be a most unfounded calumny. But the charge had at length reached the ears of the family of the late lamented Sir Eardley Wilmot. His family were at last put in possession of it; and as a knowledge of it was essential to the proper understanding of this most deplorable case, he (Mr. Spooner) would read it to the House. It was that of" living in terms of scarcely concealed concubinage with some of the females who were received as guests at the Government house." A charge more unfounded—a charge baser or more destitute of the slightest colour of truth—was never alleged against any man. He would briefly state the facts of the case. Three gentlemen came to this country from Van Diemen's Land, and shortly after their arrival had communication with the Colonial Office. Two of them laid no restriction on the publication of their names. The third did impose such a restriction, and to him he was not at liberty further to allude. Indeed, he might as well state, that he (Mr. Spooner) had not permission to mention the names of the other two, any more than that of the gentleman in question. He was not prepared to say that the names were wrongly withheld; for although the Government were in possession of them, they were given, so to speak, incog.; and, for himself, had he permission, he would not mention the names, for by so doing he would justly lay himself open to the imputation of having made unfounded charges without affording opportunity for refuting them. Under these circumstances, he would entirely refrain from giving names at all. Suffice it to say, that, after their charge had been made, the late Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Gladstone) sent a public despatch to Sir Eardley Wilmot, in which no allusion whatsoever was made to the charge affecting his (Sir Eardley Wilmot's) private character. With that despatch he (Mr. Spooner) had nothing whatsoever to do. If he were to utter a single word of com- plaint against the decision at which the authorities of the Colonial Office had arrived with respect to Sir Eardley Wilmot's removal from the administration of the affairs of Van Diemen's Land, he would be acting in direct opposition to the wishes of that lamented gentleman's family. It was their feeling, that with the public conduct of Sir Eardley Wilmot they were not at all concerned. They felt that they would not be at all justified in arraigning the decision of the Colonial Office, so far as that decision was grounded upon public grounds; and in this feeling he entirely concurred. The Colonial Department had high and important duties to perform. On their shoulders rested a vast responsibility; and he was quite willing to admit that nothing but an occurrence of a very singular and unparalleled description could justify any interference with the discretion they might think fit to exercise with respect to appointments and removals. The private despatch, therefore, and not the public one, was that to which he was desirous of directing the attention of the House. Most of the hon. Gentlemen present were familiar with the correspondence between the Secretary of State and Sir Eardley Wilmot, relative to the recall of the latter; but as some of them were not, it was necessary, for the clear and general comprehension of the case, that he should read some extracts from it. The first document to which he would take leave to call their attention, was the secret despatch from Mr. Secretary Gladstone to Sir E. Wilmot, which arrived concomitantly with the public despatch, and which, like it, was dated 30th April, 1846. It was to the following effect:—

said, after the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham—and he could have trusted the vindication of Sir Eardley Wilmot to that speech, without adding a word—he was anxious, as one of the Members of the county which Sir Eardley had so long represented, that his (Lord Brooke's) name should at least appear as confirming the statements of his hon. Friend. He agreed that the recall of a Colonial Governor upon public grounds rested with the Colonial Office, and he should be unwilling to interfere with its discretion; but where private accusations were brought upon anonymous grounds, and unfounded charges were made upon such grounds, affecting the future prosperity and well-being of those against whom they were leveled, it was most natural that the individuals should desire that their character should he cleared from the charges. He understood that the late Secretary of State did not deny that Sir Eardley Wilmot had a right to defend himself from the charges, and that he would have been most willing to acquit him; and he, therefore, most strongly and anxiously requested the representative of the Colonial Secretary in this House, that he would, at least if he went so far as to adopt the accusations of the late Secretary —["No, no; he does not."] From the answer which his hon. Friend had read from the Colonial Secretary, it would appear that he did, to a certain extent, adopt them, as he had declined to recommend Her Majesty to reinstate Sir E. Wilmot. He was anxious to hear from the noble Earl at least that acquittal which his predecessor in office was ready to give.

perfectly agreed with the sentiments of his noble Friend and the hon. Member for Birmingham; and as he had had the honour of being for many years the colleague of Sir E. Wilmot, he could not help saying a few words. Sir E. Wilmot had filled the high office of chairman of the quarter-sessions in the district which he represented; and he (Mr. Dugdale) had much pleasure in stating that he discharged that office with the greatest satisfaction to all parties. With his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, he had no hesitation in saying that all the charges which had been brought against Sir E. Wilmot were entirely false, and that the documents which had been brought that evening under the notice of the House contradicted in the most ample manner the calumnious reports as to his private character. He thanked the House for the kindness which they had shown towards his hon. Friend in allowing him to bring forward the subject that evening. That kindness would be duly appreciated by, and be most consolatory to, the family and friends of the late Sir E. Wilmot.

I stand in the same relation towards the late Sir E. Wilmot as the noble Lord and my hon. Friend. I was perfectly acquainted with him for several years, and I was one of his constituents; I had, therefore, an opportunity of knowing the manner in which he discharged his duty as representative of the county of Warwick, and of ascertaining that he acquired the good opinion of those he represented. I well recollect the occasion when my noble Friend (Lord Stanley), who then filled the office of Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, in selecting a person properly qualified to fill the post of Governor of Van Diemen's Land, which was a matter of no small difficulty, considering the peculiar circumstances of that colony, was urged to appoint a military officer instead of a civil Governor; but my noble Friend's solo motive for selecting Sir Eardley Wilmot for the post of Governor was my noble Friend's opinion, that, from Sir Eardley Wilmot's experience in the administration of the law as chairman of the quarter-sessions for the county of Warwick, and as county Member, he had had peculiar means of acquiring almost daily experience in all that relates to the administration of criminal justice; and he was recommended to the office by the unanimous voices of the magistrates — the general concurrence of the whole bench. No Member of this House will undervalue the importance in such an office of experience in the administration of the criminal law; and that was the solo motive which influenced my noble Friend in making the selection for this office. With regard to the grounds—the public grounds — for the removal of Sir E. Wilmot from the administration of affairs in the colony, my hon. Friend has most properly abstained from entering into a discussion of them. It is not for this House to control the discretion of the Crown in this respect. But it was distinctly admitted by my right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, in writing to Sir E. Wilmot, that he did not intend to withdraw him from the colony on account of any public misconduct or public neglect that would justify his withdrawal from a colony in ordinary circumstances; but in the peculiar circumstances of that colony, in consequence of the communications he had received thence, he thought himself justified in recalling Sir Eardley, and appointing another person to that office. But there was a distinct admission on the part of my right hon. Friend, that there was nothing which, on public grounds, would prevent the re-appointment of Sir Eardley to some other colony; and, looking to the public conduct of Sir E. Wilmot, in the discharge of his ordinary functions of Governor, I think my right hon. Friend would have been fully justified in recommending his re-employment in a similar capacity in another place. But I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) was placed in a peculiar and painful position with relation to this matter. Three persons connected with the colony communicated certain information, confirming the rumours which had reached this country as to the private conduct of Sir E. Wilmot. These three persons, who were of unexceptionable character, informed my right hon. Friend that the private life of Sir E. Wilmot was such as, in their opinion, was not compatible with a proper discharge of his duty as a public officer. Public rumour being thus confirmed, my right hon. Friend was justified in giving his advice to the Crown to remove Sir E. Wilmot from the government of that colony. But though he thought Sir E. Wilmot disqualified to fill the post of Governor in that particular colony, there was nothing in his public conduct which justified his removal. At the same time my right hon. Friend felt that it was not inconsistent with his duty, after receiving this information from these three persons, to desire some refutation of the charges affecting the private character of Sir Eardley which had reached the Colonial Office. Would my right hon. Friend have been justified in withholding these charges from Sir Eardley Wilmot? Was it not right that he should know that there were those impressions with respect to his private character? My right hon. Friend, therefore, in a secret despatch, communicated to Sir Eardley Wilmot the reasons which had influenced him, and the information from these respectable persons, which had given confirmation to the rumours respecting his private conduct. One of these persons was living within the limits of the United Kingdom; and application was made to this gentleman to sanction the use of his name; hut this he declined. With respect to the two other persons, they were not in England. Now, I agree generally in the statement made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner). It is my duty to state that my right hon. Friend feels the strongest conviction that the information he received was totally and entirely erroneous. I am enabled to give the most complete and explicit admission on his part, that the charges he received affecting the private character of Sir Eardley Wilmot are without foundation, and totally and entirely erroneous. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham has ably vindicated the character of Sir Eardley Wilmot against these charges. He has commented upon the nature of the charges, and the conduct of those who made them. On my own part, I also do not hesitate to express my own opinion that the charges preferred against Sir E. Wilmot must be considered as being totally and entirely without foundation. I should have felt it to be my duty, as connected with the Government of which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) was a Member, to have said thus much; but I am further induced to do so by my own feelings of personal regard towards Sir E. Wilmot, and my anxiety to show that I share in the sympathy expressed by my hon. Friend towards the widow and family who have sus- tained so severe a loss. I concur with him in thinking that the immediate representative of the title of Sir E. Wilmot—I mean his son—has shown qualities which entitle him to our strongest sympathy in the painful position in which he has been placed by Providence. I have felt it to be my duty, though I consider that my hon. Friend has stated the facts of the case most correctly, to do this act of justice to the memory of Sir E. Wilmot, and both on my own part and on that of my right hon. Friend to make him all the reparation in our power.

I do not wonder that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth should be anxious to render a reparation to the memory of Sir Eardley Wilmot; and I think that the House must be satisfied, both by the letter of Mr. Gladstone and the declaration of the right hon. Baronet, that there is enough to show the force which the charges had upon the mind of Mr. Gladstone at the time they were brought under his notice; and the right hon. Baronet has said, that, notwithstanding the impression which the charges made, he as well as Mr. Gladstone are now convinced that the charges are entirely erroneous; that although those charges affected only the private character of Sir Eardley Wilmot, they were unfounded. Such being the case, I should not have felt it necessary to say a single word upon the subject, had it not been that the hon. Member for Birmingham has thought fit to animadvert upon the conduct of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In order to form a judgment as to the accusations against Sir Eardley Wilmot, one thing was necessary, and that was to have the evidence in support of them. Now, with respect to all these matters, my noble Friend was entirely ignorant. He was informed that accusations had been preferred affecting the private character of Sir E. Wilmot. What they were he was not informed, and as to who had brought them he was not informed. How, then, could my noble Friend have pretended to give any opinion upon the subject, or add any weight to what had been done either in the colony or in this country to vindicate the character of Sir Eardley Wilmot, if my noble Friend believed the charges to be without foundation? He was without any means of judging; the only thing he knew was, that certain charges against Sir Eardley had been brought under the notice of Mr. Gladstone. It does not appear that Mr. Gladstone, though he sent a despatch to Sir Eardley respecting these charges, deemed it necessary to record that despatch in the Colonial Office—so that this despatch, described as "confidential and secret," is really no more than a private letter from Mr. Gladstone. But, the noble Lord (Lord Brooke) has stated that my noble Friend must have adopted the charges, because he did not deem it his duty to advise the Crown to re-appoint Sir Eardley Wilmot to some other colony. I must say, that in my opinion, it was not the duty of my noble Friend to give this testimony to the public conduct of Sir Eardley Wilmot before he had refuted the charges made against his private character. It was his duty and his privilege to select persons whom he thought the fittest in every respect for the government of colonies. Lord Stanley thought Sir Eardley Wilmot peculiarly qualified for the government of Van Diemen's Land, and recommended him to Her Majesty for the appointment. My noble Friend was not to he told, because charges had been brought against the private character of that Governor, which had been acted upon by his predecessor, this amounted to a recommendation that another colonial government should be provided for Sir Eardley Wilmot. My noble Friend was not bound by any such recommendation. As to the proceeding of Mr. Gladstone, and the course taken by him, it is not for me to pass any judgment or express any opinion upon them. These are most painful duties for a Secretary of State to perform. If he entertains charges against a governor, he is assailed with imputations, and often causes animosities and quarrels in the colony. At the same time, there are cases in which a Secretary of State is bound to listen to such charges. Whether Mr. Gladstone did right or wrong in receiving these statements as matter of accusation it is not for me to say; he knew the persons who brought the charges, and whether the charges were entitled to general belief, and he ought at least to have been aware of the credit to be given to the authority of the persons who brought them. It turns out that one of them is not willing that even his name should be mentioned; his testimony, therefore, is not entitled to much respect, and I think we may presume that the charges are wholly false and unfounded. However, Sir, to act on such information is a question which depends upon the discretion of the Secre- tary of State for the time being; and I only hope that the hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this question, and those who are the Friends of the late Sir E. Wilmot, will consider that whatever opinions may be entertained by those who hold office, or have held office, or by the country in general, with respect to certain political measures of the late Sir E. Wilmot, as Governor of Van Diemen's Land, that all those charges respecting his private conduct have been swept to the winds, and that his son will rest satisfied, so far as regards the present discussion, that the moral reputation of his father has been entirely vindicated.

, in explanation, stated that when Sir E. Wilmot applied to the Colonial Office in order to obtain those facilities for rebutting the charges that had been made against him, and which that Office could afford, Earl Grey declined to render him the assistance which would have enabled him to clear his character.

was of opinion that from what had transpired in the course of the present discussion every hon. Member must feel that the character of the late Sir E. Wilmot had been perfectly vindicated; and under the painful circumstances which had occurred, it must be very consolatory to the feelings of his widow and family that testimony had been borne by all parties to the character of their lamented relative. He regretted, however, that the noble Lord the Member for South Warwickshire (Lord Brooke) should have said anything that savoured of a party attack on the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office, while he entirely omitted alluding to the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Gladstone), with whom all the fault rested. Great caution ought to be observed by a Secretary of State for the Colonies when dealing with the characters of official men who were four months' voyage from the spot where an accusation against them might have been made. It was the duty of the Secretary of State to protect such persons to the very last moment. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Peel) had informed the House for the first time that three persons laid information before Mr. Gladstone, or at least before the Colonial Office, on the subject of the conduct of Sir E. Wilmot; but it did not appear that Mr. Gladstone had any personal communication with those parties; on the contrary, it would seem that he derived his information from some subordi- nates in his department. On this information Mr. Gladstone acted. He would venture to read three sentences from Mr. Gladstone's letter to Sir E. Wilmot. Mr. Gladstone said—

"Had these rumours been slight, and without presumptions of credibility, I might warrantably and gladly have passed them by."

Now, he must say, that he should hope, for the sake of human nature, that the presumptions of incredibility were very considerable when the character of a man of high station was attacked by mere rumours. But Mr. Gladstone proceeded to say, that—

"Had these rumours taken the form of charges, or of information supported by the names of the parties tendering it;"—

(Here Mr. Gladstone stated in so many words that the names of his informants were not known; but the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had told the House that he knew the names of two of the three parties who were the informants, but that the third party had refused to give up his name)—

—"it would have been my absolute duty, independently of any other reason for interference with your tenure of office, to refer the matter to you, and at once call upon you for your exculpation. But they occupy an intermediate position."

He must say that, in common parlance, the phrase of "rumours, holding an intermediate position," was to him somewhat unintelligible. He did not moan to cavil with Mr. Gladstone's conduct; but this was frittering a man's character away in a most intolerable manner. He had heard of a good, a bad, or an indifferent character; but he had never head of an intermediate character, and he really did not know what it was. The letter proceeded—

"Presuming that I have been justified in refraining from bringing them under your notice up to the present time, I feel that it would be impossible to recommend your resumption of active duties under the Crown in any other colony until they are satisfactorily disposed of."

Under what circumstances was this letter despatched? A public letter had previously gone out to recall Sir Eardley Wilmot; therefore there was no necessity to do anything until that gentleman came home, when he would have been able to meet the accusation. He felt that this letter was not such as became the person filling the high station occupied by Mr. Gladstone. If such proceedings as this letter were to be continued, he did not know anything that would tend more to prevent public men accepting colonial appointments. He perfectly agreed with Sir Eardley Wilmot as to his being placed in the un-English position of a man charged with unknown acts of impropriety, injurious to his char-actor and destructive of his interests— without any knowledge as to who were his accusers, or as to what were the accusations. He was perfectly willing to admit that since that time Mr. Gladstone had done all in his power to allay the irritation which had been excited. Every one who knew anything personally of Mr. Gladstone was well aware of the kindness of his disposition, and of the pain which these proceedings must have given him. The hon. Member for Birmingham, in the course of his speech, had chosen to bring a charge against Earl Grey, and said that Sir Eardley Wilmot's family had a serious matter to bring against that noble Lord. If this was the case, it was their duty to bring it forward at once. It was quite unnecessary for him to say anything in defence of Earl Grey after what had fallen from the noble Lord at the head of the Government. With Earl Grey he had no political connexion; but he entertained the highest regard for his character, and felt bound to protest against such a charge as had been made against him.

observed, that he had no personal acquaintance with Sir E. Wilmot, but, being connected with the county of Warwick, he felt bound to say that he considered the character of that gentleman to have been most amply vindicated. One further act of redress, however, remained still to be rendered, and he trusted it would not be withheld. In the Colonial Office it might be supposed rested the taint of these charges. Now, he did trust that the representative of that Office in the House of Commons would give an assurance to the House that if any such false documents remained there, they should either be given up or destroyed. He would only make one further remark—he thought it most unfortunate that Earl Grey should not have pursued a nobler course than he considered it fit to do; but the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government had made amends, by avowing—on good reasons—his total disbelief of the scandalous charges alleged against an hon. Gentleman who was now deceased.

I had hoped, after the speech of my right hon. Friend late at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and after the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the present Administration, that this discussion would have been permitted to have closed in a manner which I believe would have been perfectly satisfactory to all parties. ["Hear!"] Some hon. Gentlemen opposite who cheer, perhaps do not stand on this occasion precisely in the same relation with the late Sir Eardley Wilmot as I do. For a long time I had the pleasure, I will not say of being on terms of friendship, hut of intimate acquaintance, such as exists between Members of this House, with Sir E. Wilmot. I knew him for many years, and always entertained great respect for his character and general conduct as a Member of this House; and if there be any responsibility to be shared by any Member of the same Government by whom Sir E. Wilmot was appointed Governor of Van Diemen's Land, then, certainly, I am prepared to share that responsibility with my noble Friend, Lord Stanley. I consulted with my noble Friend before the appointment was made, and I entirely concurred in the propriety of the appointment. My relation, therefore, with Sir E. Wilmot is somewhat different from that of hon. Gentlemen opposite. First, with respect to the moral conduct of Sir E. Wilmot, I am satisfied that on all sides of this House it will be admitted that, by the explanation which has been given by the hon. Member for Birmingham — derived from the most authentic sources, and from Van Diemen's Land itself—every vestige of a taint of a suspicion affecting the moral character of Sir E. Wilmot has been entirely removed. Then, with respect to another topic which has been introduced into this debate, namely, the conduct of Earl Grey in this matter, I must say that I entirely differ from the hon. Member for Birmingham; I think the explanation given by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) as to Earl Grey's conduct is full and entirely satisfactory, and especially upon this ground —being the ground mentioned by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate)—that in the Colonial Office there was no trace whatever of any proof or statement of an official nature upon which the private letter of Mr. Gladstone was founded. And if I am not very much mistaken, after I shall sit down, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hawes) will give the House an assurance that there is no record of any statement whatever upon the subject of those charges in the Colonial Office. Therefore, neither with respect to the conduct of Sir Eardley Wilmot himself, nor with respect to the conduct of the present Colonial Secretary, is there any question remaining. Then comes the question as to the conduct of my right hon. Friend Mr. Gladstone. That certainly is a subject for explanation. In the course of the present discussion it has been said, negatively indeed, but in a manner almost amounting to an affirmation, that the secret letter addressed to Sir Eardley Wilmot was needlessly and wantonly written by Mr. Gladstone. It has been also said that the accusations were insinuated, and were anonymous. They were neither insinuated nor anonymous. ["Name!"] Allow me: the accusations were positive—the parties who communicated them did not give them anonymously, but presented themselves at the Colonial Office; and, as it has been stated by my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel), two of those individuals are now in Van Diemen's Land; one occupying a high official situation, and the other, though not holding an official situation, yet holding a position of the highest respectability, is a person of unblemished character. With respect to the third person, he also did hold an official situation; he made the accusation, and when called upon to allow his name to he used, he shrunk from the avowal. My right hon. Friend Mr. Gladstone has admitted that, with respect to that individual, the whole of the allegations against Sir Eardley Wilmot as preferred by him must be discharged; but with respect to the other two individuals, the accusations were so direct and positive, and were made in a manner all but official—certainly, if not official, yet were made so authoritatively—that no Secretary of State would be warranted in overlooking them; and although he did not rest the removal of Sir Eardley Wihmot from the public service upon those charges, yet he would not have been acting with candour and good faith towards that gentleman if he had not stated to him that such information had reached him. Now, what is the accusation against Mr. Gladstone? It is not contended that upon public official grounds he might not have removed Sir Eardley Wilmot from the government of Van Diemen's Land under the circumstances in which that colony was placed. If that is conceded, then the defence of Mr. Gladstone is this, that not thinking it expedient to retain Sir Eardley Wilmot as the Governor of Van Diemen's Land— while sending out a public despatch for his recall, he was most anxious to break the heaviness of that recall, by having it in his power to recommend Sir Eardley Wilmot to another appointment, if Sir Eardley could find it possible to remove the imputations cast on his private character, a statement of which had reached Mr. Gladstone, and to which, therefore, he felt it his duty to call Sir Eardley Wilmot's attention, in order that he might give to these allegations a direct negative. Mr. Gladstone, with a view to enable himself, if he considered Sir Eardley Wilmot qualified for a future appointment, to nominate him to one, gave Sir Eardley Wilmot an opportunity to contradict the accusations which had been made against him. I am of opinion that my right hon. Friend was misinformed, and that the accusations were unfounded; but I am decidedly of opinion that if the transaction were to happen again—viewing the matter as it stood when Mr. Gladstone wrote the official despatch to Sir Eardley Wilmot— and looking at the position of Sir Eardley —that the kindest course Mr. Gladstone could take would be the course which he did take, that of writing a private letter, and of affording Sir Eardley Wilmot an opportunity of refuting charges affecting his private character, which, if unremoved, would have disqualified him from holding service under the Crown, but which, if removed, as happily they have been removed, would have entitled him to a reappointment. I have thus stated my view of the case. If my right hon. Friend erred, it was not from any unkind motive towards the party charged. With respect to the duty of the Government at home towards persons holding official situations in distant colonies, I admit that the utmost tenderness and consideration should be shown on the part of the Executive towards them. They are peculiarly open to groundless accusations, owing to the distance to which they are removed from the mother country depriving them of the opportunity of defending themselves. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend Mr. Gladstone cannot be charged generally with having omitted that duty. An instance occurred during his tenure of office, as Colonial Secretary, when it became his duty to contend very strenuously with a powerful party, who preferred an accusation against a Colonial Governor. In that case my right hon. Friend evinced every readiness to maintain the servant of the Crown, who was not present to vindicate himself. Generally, I do say, that it is the duty of the Executive Government to be very slow in believing accusations against parties who cannot be present to defend themselves. But in the present case I do not consider these charges to have been founded upon mere public rumour. They rested upon grounds quite distinct, and specifically stated by credible parties. The official despatch to Sir Eardley Wilmot most certainly rests upon public grounds —not now to be entered into. I am sure the House will not expect those public grounds to be now argued. The utmost fault which can be imputed to my right hon. Friend Mr. Gladstone is, that he wrote a private letter which afforded Sir Eardley Wilmot an opportunity of explaining circumstances, which, if left unexplained, would have disqualified him from holding any future public appointment. I am sure it would have been considered inconsistent with the candour of a generous mind to have withheld from Sir Eardley Wilmot the opportunity of giving that explanation. The general character of my right hon. Friend must be admitted to be unblemished in every respect, and his kindness of heart cannot be doubted; and I trust that those who may feel they have reason to complain of the course he pursued, will be persuaded that his conduct was not dictated by any ungenerous feeling towards Sir Eardley Wilmot; and that the House will admit that he has acted neither unfaithfully nor uncandidly towards him in his discharge of a painful but imperative public duty.

did not consider it necessary, after the speech of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), to detain the House with any lengthened observations. He must, however, state, in answer to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that there was no trace whatever among the records of the Colonial Office of there having been, on any occasion, any communication made either by words written directly, or by implication, tending to cast any imputation upon the character of Sir Eardley Wilmot. There was no official record whatever of any of these charges. The hon. Member for Birmingham had rather inaccurately stated what passed between Earl Grey and the present Sir E. Wilmot. What the latter wished was, that Earl Grey, in consequence of documents forwarded from Van Diemen's Land, should state that he was convinced that all the accusations against his father were unfounded; but the noble Lord stated that he knew nothing of the grounds on which Mr. Gladstone's letter was written, and, therefore, was unable to make any statement on the subject. The noble Lord had no cognizance of any accusations; and the secret letter of Mr. Gladstone was only known to the Colonial Office on its being received from Van Die-men's Land in a despatch from Sir E. Wilmot himself. Earl Grey also informed the present Sir E. Wilmot that one reason which prevented him from making any statement to him on the subject was, that he should be obliged to make some statement on the subject in public. For his own part, he considered that the documents transmitted from the colony, accompanied by the personal declarations of those who had been there, entirely removed from his mind every trace of these accusations. He did not wish to cast any reproach or censure on Mr. Gladstone; but he could not say that he thought that Mr. Gladstone was quite justified in the course he had taken. This was all he wished to say on the subject.

said, he had reason to believe that what had passed in the present debate would be perfectly satisfactory to the family of Sir E. Wilmot.

had every reason to believe that Mr. Gladstone, in what he had done, had committed an error in judgment, and that he did not mean any unkindness; but there were three other persons who had not been handled as they deserved, and he would not be restrained from expressing his opinion on their conduct. He did not envy the feelings of the three gentlemen who had originated this calumny against Sir E. Wilmot. They had the satisfaction — if it was a satisfaction to them—of having hunted an innocent man to the grave; for if they had not directly caused the death of Sir Eardley Wilmot, at any rate it must be a satisfaction to them to know that they had caused him sorrow and misery in his dying moments. He said those three persons—gentlemen he would not rate them, whatever might be the rank in society which they had filled— had been proved to have circulated a base, foul, and cowardly calumny; and he thought Mr. Gladstone had erred in judgment in not giving up their names. He thought the hon. Member for Birmingham would have acted more discreetly if he had not at the close of his speech attacked the present head of the Colonial Office, as it was a strong provocation to his side of the House to make a party attack upon Mr. Gladstone, who was, to say the least, as much open to attack as the noble Earl who at present filled that high office.

would not allow the subject to pass without making one remark. However satisfactorily this discussion might and must be to the feelings of the surviving relatives of Sir Eardley Wilmot, to his mind it was in every part unsatisfactory, and he believed it would be found unsatisfactory to the House and to the country, except for this, that it was now proved that Sir Eardley Wilmot had been ungenerously treated and unjustly accused. He thought the noble Lord at the head of the Administration had satisfactorily answered the complaints of the hon. Member for Birmingham, when he stated that the records on which these accusations were founded did not remain in the Colonial Office—that the present Minister for the Colonies was ignorant of the names of those who had brought the accusation against the Governor—that he did not know what the accusation was—that he had no knowledge whatever of this most melancholy and disgraceful case, except of that part which was contained in the papers in the shape of public despatches. If this were true, then the request made to Earl Grey that he should examine or refute the calumnies alluded to, was a request with which he could not comply, because he had not the means of complying, whatever might be his inclination. The true state of the case was this: a functionary administering the law in a distant colony in the name of Her Majesty was recalled by the Government that appointed him to the office; and his recall was accompanied with certain complaints made against his conduct. These complaints were stated by the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies to be sufficient to induce him to decline recommending the Governor, as was usually done on such occasions, to a new office; and then his successor was called upon to rebut charges of which he had no knowledge whatever. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth said—and he was followed in this by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester-—that the grounds on which Sir Eardley Wilmot was recalled had nothing to do with the statements contained in the secret letter. But it was stated in the documents that though the grounds stated in the public despatch were sufficient for his recall, they would not have prevented his being appointed to some other colonial government. The statements contained in the secret despatch did prevent his appointment to some other situation; and, therefore, was it not certain that they were bound à fortiori to recall him on the grounds stated in the secret despatch? The right hon. Baronet said that the charges were not anonymous. What was the description given of these charges by the right hon. Gentleman himself in his secret letter? He said, "Had these rumours been slight, and without a preemption of credibility, I might have warrantably passed them by—had they, on the other hand, been put in the form of charges, or information supported by the names of the parties tendering it, it would have become my absolute duty to refer the matter to you, and to call upon you for exculpation; but they occupy an intermediate position." Now, could any man, whether in or out of the House, comprehend the meaning of this statement? He was not surprised that the right hon. Baronet said the charges were not anonymous. He might with equal justice have said that they were neither anonymous nor not anonymous. It now appeared that all parties were sorry this charge had ever been made; but he wished to bring this fact prominently before the House, that if the statement contained in the letter of the son of Sir Eardley Wilmot were true, then a public servant had been allowed to sink into the grave under the weight and pressure of a cruel and false calumny which had been made to the Colonial Minister of the country—which had been listened to by him—which was made by persons who, it appeared, were present in propria persona, and yet that their names were refused to be given up to Sir Eardley Wilmot. On that point he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Members for Dorchester and Tamworth to look at the comparative evil which had happened. The Governor's character was in the attitude of being blackened and destroyed for ever; three persons had come to the Colonial Office and made certain statements to the Minister destructive of the character of the Governor; and yet, because they were fearful of the public sanction of their names being-given to a statement which they knew would be destructive to the man's character, their names were withheld from the public. The Governor was sacrificed, and the calumniators were protected. He thought the hon. Member for Birmingham had done well in not referring to the public despatch of Mr. Gladstone, not only for the reasons he had himself given, and the reasons which the right hon. Member for Tamworth had given, but also because it was impossible to extract, even from that document, a clear statement which the mind of any Member in the House could grasp, of the cause why Sir Eardley Wilmot was removed. He had only to add, that he had no acquaintance with Sir Eardley Wilmot; but he felt he should not be doing his duty if he did not say that the Government had protected the calumniators and sacrificed the Governor.

said, that the hon. Member for Birmingham had brought forward this case, not only with great ability, but with complete success. It certainly was a most painful case to be discussed in that House; but as regarded the feelings of those most deeply interested in the discussion, nothing could be more completely satisfactory than the manner in which Sir E. Wilmot's honour had been vindicated, and the charges against him withdrawn. But the House had been told by the hon. Member for Birmingham that the whole of these charges had originated in three gentleman going to the Colonial Office, and making the statements on their authority. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester had since told the House that one of those gentlemen held a high official appointment in the colonies. Bearing this in mind, and recollecting the words of Sir E. Wilmot himself, who stated that he was the victim of the most extraordinary conspiracy that ever succeeded in defaming the character of a public servant, he wished to know whether the hon. Member for Birmingham had furnished the Government with the name of this informant; and, also, whether the Colonial Office had taken any steps, or were about to take any steps, to communicate with one who was said to hold a high official appointment in the colonies, with the view of affording him an opportunity of explaining how he became a party to accusations now so universally condemned? As regarded the conduct of Mr. Gladstone, the discussion assumed a personal character, and this he was particularly anxious to avoid. Believing Mr. Gladstone to be actuated by the kindest and most conscientious motives, yet he could not but feel that in accompanying the public despatch with the secret letter which had been alluded to, Mr. Gladstone's conduct was rash, indefensible, and unjust. He should liked to have heard, at the close of Mr. Gladstone's letter to the present Sir E. Wilmot, a frank acknowledgment that he had been guilty of one of those indiscretions which no man was exempt from. Whatever might be the respect of hon. Members for Mr. Gladstone, and whatever his desire to avoid everything of a mere personal nature, yet he thought that public duty called on them, whenever they felt that a public man had been unjustly and grievously treated, not to allow any private consideration to prevent them from declaring that such person had been the victim of great injustice.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had asked him whether he had communicated to the Colonial Office the individual's name, which was at present unknown. All he could say was, that he did not now, and never did, know the name.

felt it only necessary, after the complete explanation which had been given of the whole affair, to say a very few words on this, in many respects, painful subject. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had expressed his regret that the late Secretary for the Colonies did not, at the end of his letter to the present Sir R. Wilmot, avow that he had committed a great indiscretion in writing the private letter to the late Sir E. Wilmot. Now, he was sure that the same sense of justice which induced the late Secretary for the Colonies to state to the present Sir E. Wilmot that his father's private character was perfectly cleared, and that if he had retained the seals of office, he would have felt it his duty to recommend Sir E. Wilmot for re-employment, would have made him confess that he had committed an error or indiscretion, if he had felt that he had committed one. The House perhaps hardly sufficiently saw that the course pursued by the late Secretary for the Colonies was one of kindness, and nothing but kindness, to Sir E. Wilmot. The easiest course for the Colonial Secretary to adopt would have been to take no notice of the reports that had been alluded to, but to allow Sir E. Wilmot to return, and he would then, if spared, have been disqualified for re-employment. But the Colonial Secretary knew the sacrifices which, in a pecuniary sense, Sir E. Wilmot made in going out, and did not wish to place him in that position. The right hon. Gentleman the member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith) said that the Secretary for the Colonies ought not to have made any intimation to Sir E. Wilmot of the reasons which prevented him from recom- mending that gentleman for re-employment under the Crown; but what would have been his feelings if his life had been spared, and he had returned home without hearing those reasons? He would have said, "You have placed me in a false position; you wait till my return before you make this charge, and it is not in my power here to clear myself of it." He (Captain Gladstone) might say, he believed, on the part of his right hon. relative, that he deeply regretted—he must regret—that those charges ever were made; at the same time, his justification in his (Captain Gladstone's) mind, rested entirely on the evidence, and the nature of the charges, and the parties by whom they were made. If his right hon. relative wrote his letter on insufficient ground, then, certainly, he was guilty of worse than indiscretion; but, if not, he took the only course he could take. He was under the disadvantage, and so were those who defended him, of not being able to give the names. [An Hon. MEMBER: Why not?] The circumstances had been most accurately described by the right hon. Baronet (Sir. J. Graham); and in the position in which the Secretary for the Colonies was placed, he could have pursued no other course than that which he took. That right hon. Gentleman rejoiced greatly that the character of Sir E. Wilmot was cleared, and would rejoice to find that it was cleared in a manner satisfactory to the members of that House and to the feelings of his family.

was anxious for the character of England, and wanted to know whether this was the sort of treatment to which the governors of her colonies were to be subject. The hon. and gallant Captain said, "If you knew the parties who made the accusation, you would understand the position of my right hon. relative;" why had not his right hon. relative stated those names long ago? He had no notion of official reserve when an honest man was to be sacrificed. Were the charges made by these persons true? No; the hon. and gallant Member's "right hon. relative." had declared that they were not true. These respectable names, then, had been vouchers for a falsehood. A gentleman had gone out to represent the Sovereign of England—to govern a distant colony in very difficult circumstances—and had performed his duty to the best of his ability. Behind his back some respectable gentlemen addressed the hon. and gallant Mem- ber's "right hon. relative," and that "right hon. relative" dismissed the Governor, without inquiry, and without once saying what the charge was; for "my right hon. relative" had the faculty of mystifying everything he touched, and covering his meaning with a multitude of sentences, and wrapping it in a mass of involuted, and convoluted, and involved phraseology. What was the charge? No one knew. Nothing was so easy, in public or in private, as to put forward dark and mysterious statements against a man, not venturing to avow what you accuse him of. He (Mr. Roebuck) had to charge "my right hon. relative" with doing a dishonourable act in doing that. He had not the courage to make the accusation, though he did dismiss an honest man from the public employment. If he were a relation of Sir E. Wilmot, he would pursue "my right hon. relative" for the rest of his life. He deserved it. England required that those who represented her in all parts of the globe, should not thus he treated. He knew nothing of Sir E. Wilmot, except as a Member of that House, and spoke of him simply as a Governor sent out to manage a distant colony; and he wanted to press for something like responsibility in the colonial administration. What said the hon. and gallant Captain? "If you only knew what the accusations were, and the gentlemen who made them, you would feel and own the difficulty of the position of my right hon. relative." [Captain GLADSTONE: I said nothing about the accusations; I said merely, "If you were aware who were the parties that made the accusations."] Why, it must be assumed that the accusation was a grave one, or else the right hon. Secretary had no business to dismiss Sir E. Wilmot. But why did not the House know who these parties were? Was there anything in the character of the Gentleman who lately held the seals of the Colonial Office to shield him at all? What business had he to dismiss a person on such an accusation? [An Hon. MEMBER on one of the Opposition benches: He did not.] Then he dismissed him on no accusation. All that the hon. and gallant Member said was, "If you knew the names of the parties making the accusation, you would understand the feelings and the position of my right hon. relative." But what would be the feelings of the people of England? A Governor was performing his duty in his distant colony, when certain parties went to the Colonial Office, and made a calumnious and false accusation against him; and without further ado, or any open charge, or any chance given to him of defence, that gentleman was dismissed. So far the facts were agreed on. [An Hon. MEMBER: NO, no.] No! Why, he was dismissed upon that accusation. ["No, no!"] Then what was he dismissed for? The Secretary for the Colonies said, that he believed him incapable of governing the colony he was sent to, and that, having removed him in consequence of that inability, he could not recommend him to further official employment, because certain charges of immoral conduct were brought against him. But he (Mr. Roebuck) did not believe that version of the case; he believed it was wished to dismiss Sir E. Wilmot, and that those accusations were in the Colonial Office at the time of his dismissal. He charged that upon the late Secretary for the Colonies, and asserted that Sir E. Wilmot was not dismissed from inability to govern the colony, but was dismissed in consequence of those insinuations and calumnies which were uttered against him in the Colonial Office. Did the late Colonial Secretary-want to get out of that? Let him give the House the accusations, with the dates thereof, and prove that they were subsequent to the dismissal. But he could not do that; and, not doing that, he (Mr. Roebuck) charged the late Colonial Secretary with dismissing Sir E. Wilmot on a pretence that he was unequal to the performance of his office; whereas it was his own prudish feelings, his own notion of what was acceptable to what he called the moral feeling of the people of England, that led to the dismissal, under the plea that he was unfit for his office; and then, having been pushed out, he was told, "Oh! there are reasons; I could, if I would, suggest reasons for your dismissal." He charged that upon the late Colonial Secretary, and all persons connected with him; and they could only get out of it by giving the accusation, with the dates; never mind the names. But, if the dates were honestly given, the date of the accusation, which had been proved to be a calumny, would he found to precede the dismissal. Why did he (Mr. Roebuck) dwell upon this? He had no particular feeling for Sir E. Wilmot, except as a gentleman who went out to administer a colonial government; and anybody who saw anything of the mode in which our colonial administration was mismanaged by Lord Stanley and Mr. Glad- stone must be heartily anxious that neither of them should ever meddle with it again. No sooner did they stretch forth their hand to anything connected with it, than mischief immediately followed, and every direful consequence of mischievous interference resulting from ignorance or presumption. Our colonial empire extended all over the globe; and in every part of the globe we could see ignorance leading the way, audacity following—audacity only equalled by ignorance—and mischief the consequence of both. He sympathized with the family of the gentleman who had unfortunately fallen a victim—but not a solitary victim; there were hundreds now pining away, the victims of our colonial misrule. Sir E. Wilmot was noticed because he happened to occupy a high station. He pointed his finger at the case, as illustrating the mischief of an irresponsible Colonial Administration.

had no intention to go into the general discussion; but the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) had made statements relative to the grounds of the recall of Sir E. Wilmot, which that hon. and learned Gentleman could not have made if he had been in the House during the whole of this discussion. He honestly believed that the public grounds specified were sufficient to justify that recall, and they were wholly irrespective of the charge with regard to his moral character. The hon. and learned Member really could not have read the papers without seeing that the recall was wholly irrespective of any charges against Sir E. Wilmot's private character, and that it proceeded only upon public grounds—grounds which were reviewed by Earl Grey, and held to be sufficient. [Mr. ROEBUCK: What are the dates?] He was ignorant of the dates. Sir E, Wilmot was recalled upon sufficient public grounds; and those grounds had been reviewed by a separate independent authority. [Mr. ROEBUCK: That is not sufficient.] Why, Earl Grey had no prejudice in favour of Mr. Gladstone; Earl Grey reviewed the grounds, and his statement was—" I consider the public grounds sufficient; I do not know what are the private grounds upon which you are accused. He was not at the Colonial Office at the time in question, but must say that he believed Mr. Gladstone wrote his letter in a spirit of fairness. Statements had been made to Mr. Gladstone; and that right hon. Gentleman considered it due to Sir E. Wilmot, that though his recall had not turned upon them, they should be made known to him, that he might have an opportunity of refuting those calumnies, as they had turned out to be. He honestly believed it was done in a spirit of perfect fairness and perfect justice.

considered the really important question to be that which had been introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and which the hon. Member who had just sat down had declined to notice, contenting himself with a denial of the imputed cause of dismissal. He must distinctly charge Mr. Gladstone with having dismissed Sir E. Wilmot on the ground referred to in that secret despatch. The papers themselves showed it. The hon. Member (Mr. Hope) said he could not give dates, and, so far as he was concerned, had left the House ignorant as to when the intelligence first reached Mr. Gladstone; but the despatch itself dismissing Sir E. Wilmot gave a date. It was dated April 30, 1846; and the private despatch referring to the anonymous calumny bore the same date. Did the hon. Member mean to say that those accusations were not received before the 30th, when Mr. Gladstone sat down to write his despatch? Of course he had seen them, and thought of them before that. His own letter proved it. There was one part of the case which he wished the Under Secretary of the Colonies had not passed over so cavalierly. The question which arose was, whether the colonies were in future to be governed on the principles laid down in this secret despatch? A department of the Government was found to listen to anonymous accusations. If the defence of Mr. Gladstone was an honest one, why were not the names of his informants given? Had not the House of Commons a right to know what was the authority which had led Mr. Gladstone to entertain charges against an honest man who had been hunted to death? The men who misled Mr. Gladstone could have done no harm unless Mr. Gladstone had adopted their statements. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury, when Colonial Secretary, had stated that the colonies were to be governed by the recognised principles of justice in the mother country. Were the principles, then, stated in Mr. Gladstone's secret despatch to be the principles on which colonial government was in future to be conducted?

would not allow such language to be used in reference to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), as had been employed by the hon. and learned Members for Bath and Winchester. They had spoken of his right hon. Friend's conduct as dishonest and calumnious; but he would assort that his right hon. Friend had given ample reasons for Sir E. Wilmot's recall, in the fact that he was not sufficiently acquainted with the convict system, and that his management had not in consequence been successful. But in saying this, did he (Sir W. James) rely upon his own opinion alone? No; there was the opinion of the present Secretary of State for the Colonies—an opinion which stood high with many Members of the House; and it was, that Mr. Gladstone had ample grounds for the recall of Sir E. Wilmot. The hon. Member for Birmingham, in stating the case, had very properly and discreetly mentioned that the recall had taken place on public grounds, and that the charges preferred against Sir E. Wilmot's private character had nothing to do with it; and yet the two hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for Bath and Winchester came forward at the eleventh hour, and asserted that Sir E. Wilmot had been dismissed for private reasons alone, and founded upon that assertion grave charges against Mr. Gladstone, who was not present to answer for himself. Such assertions, however, were altogether untenable, and were contradicted by the statements of the late Premier, and his Colleague the Secretary for the Home Department.

hoped he should not allow his friendship for Mr. Gladstone to qualify his opinion; and, looking impartially at his conduct, he did think that his hon. and learned Friends the Members for Bath and Winchester had attributed to his right hon. Friend motives which he believed had never actuated him, and sentiments which his right hon. Friend had never entertained. He believed that the motive in which the private and confidential letter—for it was private and confidential—originated, was simply to inform Sir E. Wilmot that there were rumours abroad regarding his character—that these rumours had come to England—and the probability was they would reach the Colonial Secretary and other Ministers in a still stronger shape; but if he succeeded in dispelling those rumours, there was no reason why he should not receive another appointment. The recall was solely on public grounds. That Sir E. Wilmot, excellent man as he may have been, should not be competent to deal with one of the most difficult propositions ever submitted to a Colonial Governor, namely, that of governing a penal colony in a time of transition from one system to another, was no great slur on his character, either as a man or as a governor. He believed that Mr. Gladstone thought Sir E. Wilmot was not competent to discharge the difficult duties which devolved upon him; and it was solely for that reason that the right hon. Gentleman resolved to recall him. Then came the rumours; and he begged to inform the House that these rumours were not confined to the ear of the Colonial Secretary, but prevailed in private society in this country; and certainly it was most important for Sir E. Wilmot that they should be negatived, and it was an act of kindness in Mr. Gladstone to that gentleman to give him an opportunity of accomplishing that object. Had Mr. Gladstone confined himself to the public question alone, what would have been the condition of Sir E. Wilmot? He would have been deemed incompetent to remain in the governorship of the colony, and, in addition, the rumours which had reached this country against him would have continued; and had he reached this country in ignorance of their existence, he would have been deprived of the means of negativing them. It was to Mr. Gladstone, then, that Sir E. Wilmot was indebted for the opportunity of making his defence, and of setting his character right with the public. Those persons knew little of Mr. Gladstone who imagined that in discharging an unpleasant public duty he was capable of doing anything calculated unnecessasily to wound the feelings of the individual. He believed he had Mr. Gladstone's authority for saying that it was his intention, had he remained a Colonial Minister, and if Sir E. Wilmot had cleared himself, to have appointed him to some other situation. There was no doubt that had Sir E. Wilmot lived, and had Mr. Gladstone continued in office, he would have been placed in a position better fitted to his peculiar talents, and that he would have had reason to look with satisfaction, rather than with regret, upon what had occurred. He felt, with the hon. and learned Member for Winchester, that the public offices should not be made the depositories of calumnies of the kind in question. He did feel how necessary it was for Ministers of State to check at the outset such ca- lumnies, and such injurious reflections upon the private character of individuals as might result in depriving this country of the services of some of its best officers. It was very possible, nay, very probable, that many very competent men might not be precisely the most guarded and careful in their habits of life, and that it might be very possible to trump up cases of calumny against men who in distant parts were performing the most difficult duties in the most creditable manner. He thought that what had occurred in the case now under consideration should teach the Colonial Office caution as to how they ventured to deprive the country of the services of really active and useful men, because of objections stated to their private character by some individual, actuated perhaps by a desire to see those places filled by persons more congenial to their dispositions. He trusted the Colonial Office would take a lesson from what had occurred, and that the friends of Sir E. Wilmot would really believe that Mr. Gladstone had acted from the most noble and the most generous motives.

regretted the turn which the debate had taken during the past hour. The discussion commenced more in sorrow than in anger. His hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham deprecated in the opening speech all reference to the public grounds upon which Sir E. Wilmot was recalled, nor did he raise that question at all. His object was to defend the private character of Sir E. Wilmot from the attack made upon it in a secret despatch of the same date as the public one. The defence made by his hon. Friend was complete; and certainly the more so when followed, as it had been, by the late Prime Minister and the late Secretary for the Home Department, and by others who had borne equally strong testimony to the validity of the defence which the accused party had made, and who had expressed such deep sympathy with the family of the deceased. He could not but hope that the discussion would now come to a close, and that the House would enter upon the other important business which awaited consideration.

said, that although the debate just closed had occupied some time longer than was anticipated, he did not regret having given way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, who had so ably vindicated the character of a deceased Member of that House. He rose now with reluctance when he considered that the Motion he had to propose was that the House resolve itself into a Committee that day three months, and that, consequently, the debate could not lead to any direct practical result. But as he had not yet had any opportunity of calling the attention of the House to measures of great importance to Scotland, and as the state of the public business had prevented him from explaining the grounds upon which he introduced these Bills, or which induced him to adopt the present course, he trusted the House would, for a short time, extend to him its indulgence. The first of these measures had for its object to establish in Scotland a proper system of registration of births, deaths, and marriages. The importance of such a measure was a matter upon which it was unnecessary for him to say a single word. As furnishing statistic information of the greatest value, its importance could not be doubted; and as regarded the interests of individuals and families, it was equally great. It was with this view, and bearing in mind the utility of such a system in a public and private sense (although the Bill had met considerable opposition in Scotland), that he wished to introduce a complete system of registration of births, deaths, and marriages. In considering the course to be taken upon the introduction of such a measure, it was impossible to overlook the circumstance that for ten years a system of registration had been carried on in this country. To the working of that system he had turned his attention, and had availed himself of the experience gained through its operation, in order to apply it to Scotland with greater effect. He proposed to have a head department in Edinburgh, under the charge of a registrar general, where the most important registers should be kept, and where parties seeking information might consult them, and obtain cheap and authentic certificates. Connected with this, he proposed following the system in England, that there should be districts, placed under superintending registrars, and sub-districts, in which the registration should be effected by the local registrars. The districts would consist of counties, and of some large towns: the sub-districts, of divisions of those, consisting, in most instances, of parishes, according as the convenience of registration might require. In all this he followed the English system; but with some advantages, because he proposed to make the sheriffs' clerks the superintending registrars—persons fully qualified for the discharge of that duty, and who were already provided with offices proper for the custody of important papers—by which there would be a considerable saving of expense. This brought him to the question of expense— the most important, perhaps, of all—and in which originated the opposition to the Bill. On that subject he necessarily conferred with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had said, "I will do for Scotland what has been done for England. Part of the expense of the system —that portion which in England is borne out of the Consolidated Fund—shall be so defrayed in Scotland; but I will not go further, for I cannot authorize payments out of the Treasury for Scotland which in England are not borne by the Treasury, but by local taxation." That answer, he much feared, was conclusive. However anxious he was to lighten the burdens of the people of Scotland, he owned that, whether as connected with Government or as a Member of Parliament, he did not see that his right hon. Friend could have done more. But he knew he was not to be moved on that point. The portion of the expenses paid in England out of the public treasury were the expenses of the central department—the important item of stationery, and the payment of the superintendent registrars. With respect to marriages in the sub-districts, as the expense of registering a marriage was paid by the contracting parties, no portion would have to be paid by the Treasury or by local taxation, and thus they were brought to the only part of the expense to be raised by local taxation, and that was the expense of registering, in the first instance, births and deaths. He wished again to observe, that this was the only expense to be provided for by local taxation—every other expense being paid out of the Treasury, or, in the case of marriage, by the parties— and it was because of the local taxation that the Bill had latterly been opposed. Now, before stating the manner in which he proposed to raise the funds necessary for registering births and deaths by taxation, in the manner of a parochial rate, or, in short, by assessment on the principle of the poor-rate, he would draw the attention of the House to the utmost amount of that taxation. The Registrar General of England reckoned on an aver-age of years, from 1838 to 1846, that, for every thirty-one of the population, there was one birth, and that for every forty-five there was one death. He supposed it would not be a very extravagant assumption to imagine the average births and deaths bore in Scotland the same relative proportion to the whole population. Taking, therefore, that average, and assuming that the population in Scotland was 3,000,000, which was 400,000 more than appeared by the census of 1841, they would have most probably in the year, of births 96,700, and of deaths 66,600, making a total of 163,300 entries in the year. In each sub-district, for the first twenty entries there was to be paid 2s. 6d. The further entries were to be charged at 1s. Then, assuming the number of parishes or sub-districts to be 900, there would be 18,000 entries at 2s. 6d. each, and requiring 2,250l The other entries, at Is. each, would require about 7.260l; and the total expense of registration amounted to the sum of 9,500l. If they took the population as it appeared in the census of 1841, they would find that the total expense would not exceed 8,500l. Now, if they took another view of the question and referred to parishes, they would find there were 268 parishes out of 900 in which the population was under 1,000, and the average population of which was 711. The expense of registering the probable number of births and deaths in those 268 parishes could not exceed 3l. 10s. for each parish per year. Upon the same principle, in 275 other parishes in which the population varied from 1,000 to 2,000, and the average of the population might be taken at 1,818, the whole expense of registering only amounted to 6l. 10s. per annum. Those two numbers, viz., 268 and 275, exhausted one-half of the parishes in Scotland. Going a step higher, he took 217 parishes in which the population varied from 2,000 to 4,000, and where the average was 2,764, and he found the expense of registering would amount to a sum not exceeding 9l. 10s. per annum. The local taxation for the purpose of registering would of course be higher in large towns and populous places; but he had shown that, in 760 parishes, containing one-half of the entire population of Scotland, the expense was as low as 3l. 10s. to 6l. 10s. and 9l. 10s. per annum. The question then arose, "How is the money to be raised?" He could not get it from the Consolidated Fund, neither could he get it from the Treasury. If he had proposed to raise it by a tax upon landed property, the landlords would have said, "It is a great hardship upon us: why should personal property be exempted?" But if he put it upon personal property, he appealed to hon. Gentlemen connected with Scotland whether there was any other mode of assessment, except that provided for the poor rate, by which personal property could be charged. He would not object, if the landed proprietors preferred that course, to lay the whole burden on them; but if they objected, it appeared to him, under the circumstances, most legitimate that the tax should take the shape of a parochial rate: 1st, because the poor could not afford to register themselves; 2ndly, because the registration was for the service of the poor law, as the registers would give the most important evidence on questions of settlement; and, 3rdly, because, finding the machinery already in operation for the collection of the poor rate, it appeared to him that he followed the best, the cheapest, the most convenient, and the fairest course when he assimilated the system to that pursued in England, and made the rate a parochial one. He should have been exceedingly glad to have received suggestions with respect to any other kind of assessment, but none were made to him; and he found himself fortunate in having already the model of a cheap and easy assessment for so small a purpose. The objections of those who considered the system open to exceptions, on the ground that it would occasion confusion, would be easily overcome by the providing that separate and distinct accounts should be kept of the moneys so collected and applied. He had asked those who objected to the measure, "What better mode of assessment can be devised?" He had said, "Do you realty mean to say that, not being able to propose a better mode of assessment—hopeless of relief from the Treasury—do you mean to say we are to have no registration in Scotland, because you will not consent to raise this small sum by means of a parochial rate?" To this direct appeal he could get no satisfactory answer. It was said, indeed, that any additional burden on the poor rate would make it more unpopular than it was. The reply was, do not put it on the rate. Only levy the expense on the principle of a parochial rate, and by the same collectors, though for the separate purpose. In deciding who should be qualified to become district registrars, he had at first excluded schoolmasters; but he had not done so from any desire not to encourage that most meritorious class of the community, but solely from the belief that their multifarious duties would not permit them to discharge the duty. Those persons had too many duties to perform already; and by a return furnished to him, he found that in 800 parishes there were belonging to the profession 706 session-clerks, and 423 inspectors of the poor, obliged, in the discharge of their duty, to walk through the entire parish. He also found that a great number of them discharged various duties independently of those connected with their profession as teachers; and his attention had been directed to one case in which the schoolmaster was session-clerk, inspector of the poor, collector of poor rates, clerk of inheritors, and holder in all of no less than seven offices, besides that of schoolmaster. It was said that there were registers kept in Scotland; so also there were in England previous to the Registration Act; but that was no reason why a more efficient system should not be established; and he proposed to do what had been done in England, to leave all those registers as they were. It would be found impossible to use them with advantage for the establishment of a general register in Scotland more than in England. Then, for the other measure before the House, it was impossible for any person acquainted with the law of Scotland not to see the facilities which a system of registration would afford for amending the law of marriage, as regarded its constitution. The law of Scotland required nothing but the consent of the parties to constitute a marriage. The requisite age was 14 in males, and 12 in females. There was no need of the consent of parents or guardians, nor the least necessity for the intervention of the ministers of religion. But what was still more important was, that, even as respected consent, there was no fixed rule of evidence. It might be proved by parol evidence, by writing, or even by circumstances. The law was right in principle when it made the constitution of marriage depend on consent. But in requiring no special form of interchanging such consent —in admitting it to be proved in modes much more loose and vague than those al- lowed in any other contract, it gave room to the most serious and scandalous abuses; and courts of law were every day obliged to decide in lowed in any other contract, it gave room to the most serious and circumstances of such difficulty, and upon proof so equivocal, that it was not too much to say that a party might find himself married against his will by the sentence of a court. Then the law requiring no public ceremony—no public acknowledgment — contenting itself with latent consent—gave the most fatal encouragement to clandestine marriages—all the more dangerous that such marriages, though concealed from all the world, though known only to the parties, were as obligatory as the most formal marriages made in facie ecclesiæ. Nor could cither party, by silence, or by allowing the other party to contract without objection a second marriage, bar himself or herself from asserting their status, and setting up the first, though to the annulment of the second. Any other doctrine would give occasion to voluntary divorce. The evils arising from this uncertainty in the mode of contracting marriage, and from the obligatory nature of the contract, though kept altogether latent—could not be exaggerated, and was of daily experience. To show this, he would advert to one or two cases by way of illustration. The first was one of great importance, and had given rise to one of the ablest judgments that had ever been delivered by one of the most distinguished Judges on the English bench, the late Sir W. Grant. A gentleman, who was afterwards of high title and princely estate, contracted marriage, by writing, with a lady in Scotland, in 1802 or 1803 —the only contract was an interchange of writings; and the marriage was kept strictly private—known only to the parties themselves. The gentleman subsequently came to England; and in 1808— being a man in that respect of no honour, and thinking perhaps that the evidence of his marriage had been lost, whereas it had been carefully preserved—paid his addresses to a lady belonging to one of the first families in England, and was accepted and married; but the lady was not married a year when the marriage was annulled at the suit of the lady who was the consenting party to the first marriage. Fortunately there was no issue of the second marriage; but the English lady was reduced to a state of distress and degradation, if there could be degradation where there was no moral guilt, by discovering that she married the husband of another living wife. The second case was that of a gentleman, who had lived for many years in concubinage with one of his domestic servants, and had several children by her. One day he called up all his servants, and this woman and her children, and without any religious ceremony, said, in the presence of his household, "I acknowledge this woman to be my wife, and these to be my children." It was not proved that she made any similar declaration; but she did not dissent from it. He then left the room, wont about his grounds, gave some directions to his overseer, returned to his own room, and shot himself dead. Various questions arose —first, as to the sanity of the man, and it was proved that he was perfectly sane; next, as to the validity of the marriage, which turned upon whether it was his intention to many the woman, or only to leave her a widow, and entitle his children to his estate, to the disherison of those who would otherwise have been entitled to it. The question was closely argued, but ultimately the House of Lords decided the marriage to be good, and his child now possessed the estates, which were worth upwards of 20,000l a year. He could cite many other instances, but he thought these were enough to prove that the law of Scotland on this subject was most disgraceful, and without a parallel in the civilized world. In another case, a party had been married in the presence of a clergyman, who pronounced the nuptial benediction; but the validity of the marriage was challenged, on the ground that the parties never intended to be married. The want of intention was not proved either precedently or contemporaneously; but the marriage was declared by the House of Lords to be invalid, not from any circumstances preceding the marriage, or contemporaneous, but solely upon inferences drawn from the conduct of the parties subsequent to the ceremony. He would now call attention to the statute law. By an Act passed in 1661, and another in 1695, clergymen were prevented, under pains and penalties, from celebrating marriage. Under these Acts the Episcopal clergy first assailed the Presbyterian clergy; the latter, when they got the upper hand, used the Acts against the Episcopalian and Roman Catholic clergy. These last, with the exception of an Act passed in favour of the Episcopal clergy, continued subject to these disabilities down to 1833 or 1834, when an Act was passed allowing clergymen of all persua- sions to celebrate marriage, only there must be a proclamation of the banns. In Scotland, however, the proclamation of the banns is read by the session-clerk in an inaudible voice, before the service begins, and when very few persons are present to hear them, and all this not on three consecutive Sundays, but on the same day; and it often happened that the banns were proclaimed in a church not attended by the parties, or their friends, or acquaintances. If, however, the session clerk gave a certificate that the banns were duly proclaimed, you can make no further inquiry. It was said that the statute law discouraged all marriages not made in presence of a clergyman, and countenanced those only where a religious ceremony was performed. But how stood the fact? If you do not resort to the clergyman —if you leave him entirely out, and make a simple declaration before witnesses, you are subject to no pains and penalties; but if you should resort to a clergyman, or employ a religious ceremony—if you read at your marriage the ritual of the Church of England or the Church of Rome—if you go through any form of celebrating a marriage—but have not got your proclamation of banns, the celebrator of that marriage, though unquestionably a clergyman, is liable to a prosecution. The only chance of a prosecution in the matter was, when a religious ceremony was used; if the marriage was without religious ceremony, the statute law of Scotland imposed no penalty. Now, in the Bill before the House, he did not propose to affect any marriage celebrated in a place of worship. He was quite content that the clergy of the Church of Scotland, Roman Catholics, and all Dissenters, should celebrate marriages as they had been heretofore accustomed. But the Bill required that when the parties did not choose to be married by a clergyman, they should be married before the registrar; and where the marriage was to be so contracted, provision was made for much greater publicity than was or could be obtained by proclamation of banns. Leaving out of question the marriages contracted by Quakers and Jews, which stood upon grounds of their own, he reduced the forms of marriage to be used in Scotland to two—viz., marriage by clergymen, and marriage before the registrar. It had been said that he proposed to make marriages valid only for a certain time, and that their validity should depend upon registration previous to a certain period. He proposed nothing so absurd—his proposal was, that the marriages to be celebrated, either by a clergyman or by the registrar, should be accompanied by certain forms; and when those forms were complied with, the marriage was legal and binding. The forms to be gone through in the case of marriages before the registrar, he had made very stringent; great preliminary publicity was required; and the marriage was contracted by the parties signing on the register a declaration of their marriage—such a declaration, by the law of Scotland as it now stood, constituted marriage; but if that rendered such a form of marriage less acceptable to the people of Scotland—if they would prefer the ceremony to be performed by a clergyman, because such a marriage was less public, he did not regret that parties should be so compelled to have recourse to the church, and even thought that some good would be accomplished. He was sorry that, from the manner in which the objects of the Bills had been misrepresented, he had found it necessary to enter at such length into the subject, because his intention was then to move that the two Bills be committed on that day three months. The reason why he had come to this conclusion was not so much pressure of other business, or the late period of the Session, still less was it the force of the objections which had been made against the measure; but because he believed there was a strong opinion throughout the whole of Scotland in favour of delay. He should employ the interval between the present time and the assembling of next Parliament in fully considering such of the objections as were worthy of attention, though he should not bestow a thought on some he had lately heard, which savoured more of ignorance and bigotry than of a fair consideration founded on a desire for the amendment of the law. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, that the Bill be committed that day three months.

said, however unreasonable the Members from Scotland might appear in the eyes of the learned Lord, it was to be borne in mind that they faithfully represented the opinions of the people of that country. The learned Lord might think the people very bigoted since they had had those Bills under their consideration for four or five mouths, and yet they were universally opposed to them, both clergy and laity. It was to be borne in mind that the Marriage Bill for England was not introduced for statistical purposes —it was avowedly brought in to satisfy the scruples entertained by certain Dissenters to being compelled to be married in the Church; and it was introduced and passed with the assent of the English people. If the Bills on the Table had been proceeded with, they must have been forced down the throats of the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland ought to object to the Bill, because it would be an almost insuperable bar to the marriage of the poor man; and, moreover, because it contained many harsh and ineffectual provisions. These were some of the grounds upon which the Scotch people had petitioned against the Bill, and, in his opinion, should continue to oppose it.