said, that seeing the Secretary for the Home Department in his place, he should put to him the question of which he had given him notice; but, perhaps, it was first necessary fur him to state that by the 3 & 4 of Vict. cap. 88, sec. 16 it was imperative upon chief constables of counties to bring before the magistrates at petty sessions a list of local constables recommended by themselves, and on the magistrates appointing such constables, an order was simultaneously made that a scale of fees should be made out for their payment. The Act, however, unfortunately omitted to state how those fees were to be raised, for although in the case of individuals there was no difficulty whatever, in the case of the arrest of thieves or felons there was no fund available for the payment of the fees. He therefore begged to ask the light hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill for the payment of local constables appointed under the Act 3 & 4 Vict., cap. 88, sec. 16, during the present Session?

said, it was perfectly true that the Act which authorized the appointment of those local constables did not specify the fund out of which they were to be paid. The Act had been in operation some seventeen years, and he had not up to that time heard of any inconvenience arising under it. The men were strictly speaking not local constables, although generally their employment was of that character, for they could be employed beyond the limits of a county. In case of their being employed, he apprehended they should be paid by the person at whose instance the summons was served or the arrest made. However, he would look into the Act, for at present he must confess he did not see out of what fund the men were to be paid in the cases supposed by the hon. Gentleman.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Metropolitan Improvement Committee of 1855, he has been able to devise any plan for relieving the great increase of traffic which now passes through Parklane, and has become so dangerous to the public? Also, whether there would be any objection to open to the public the road through the park from Stanhope-street-gate to Hyde Park corner?

said, that the Committee of 1855 had recommended that one of the first openings which should be made for facilitating the traffic of the metropolis should be a road from Piccadilly through Hamilton place and on to Stanhope-street-gate. In consequence of that recommendation, he, in the course of last year, had proposed to take some steps with the view of carrying if into effect; he had, however, been at once met by an objection to his scheme upon the part of eight or nine persons residing in Hamilton-place. To test the validity of that objection, the case was laid before the law-officers of the Crown, and they had given it as their opinion that it was valid. He had, therefore, been unable to take any further steps in the matter. In reply to the second question, he might state that, in his opinion, there was serious objection to throwing open the road from Stanhope-street-gate to Hyde Park-corner. If it were open for traffic by day, it was equally necessary that it should be open also by night, and the result would be, that the whole of the park would be open by night—a state of things which he felt assured no hon. Member would wish to have brought about. He should add, that it was quite obvious that great inconvenience arose from the narrow state, of park-lane, but under the Act of 1855 power was vested in certain local authorities to purchase land, with the view of widening thoroughfares, and if that were done in the present instance he should not hesitate to say that a great improvement would be effected.

asked the President of the Poor Law Board whether the hon. Member for Boston still continues to hold the office of auditor under the Poor Law Board.

said, the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. W. H. Adams) was one of the auditors of the Poor Law Union accounts. He was elected last year, under the operation of an Act of the reign of Her present Majesty, by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Poor Law district in which he acted as auditor. He was only one of forty-nine other Poor Law officers who discharged duties of a similar character, and whose appointments wore under the immediate control of the Poor Law Board, because they were elected in the manner which had just been stated. The hon. Member for Boston, however, was paid out of money taken by Vote in that House on account of the Poor Law Board, and was liable by statute to dismissal by that Board in the case of his being incompetent to the discharge of his duties. The fact of his having been elected to represent Boston did not, he (Mr. Bouverie) believed, render him incapable of occupying his present position. He consequently retained the office of auditor; and, so far as his experience of the Poor Law Board went, he had every reason to think him a most useful officer.

said, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information respecting the circumstances attending the death of James Williams, a seaman on board the John and Edward schooner, of Aberystwith, who was killed in the harbour of Belleisle on the 24th day of May last, by a shot fired from the French war schooner Maratch. He would, if the House would permit him, briefly state the circumstances of this case, as they had come to his knowledge from the reports in the newspapers, and from a letter written by the captain of the schooner. The facts appeared to be these:—On the 24th May the John and Edward schooner, put into the roads of Sarzeau, a small town on the north-east of Belleisle. Having been driven in by stress of weather, she was not prepared with the necessary signals; she brought up and came to an anchor within a cable's length of the stern of a French man-of-war—the Maratch schooner. A shot was fired at the John and Edward to hoist her colours, and her captain sent a man up to reeve the pennant halyards for the purpose of doing so; but before the man came down another shot was fired from the vessel of war, and while the men in the John and Edward were hauling up their ensign, and when it was about a couple of fathoms above the boom, a third shot was fired, which killed one of the men who were engaged in hauling it up. He thought the House would agree with him that if these facts were correct—which, however, it was but right to say were wholly ex parte—["Order!"] he had to apologize to the House for going beyond the strict rule of asking questions by making this statement, but he thought the peculiar nature of the case in some degree warranted his observations.

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received full information of the lamentable occurrence to which the hon. Gentleman's question relates. The statement he has made conveys to the House pretty nearly the exact course of the transaction. The schooner John and Edward entered the roads of Belleisle without having any colours flying. I think the commander was wrong, for of course no ship ought to enter the harbour of a foreign country without colours to distinguish her nationality. Still, the conduct of the officer in command, for the moment, of the French vessel of war, was quite unjustifiable, because, although his having ordered two blank musket shots to be fired could not be complained of, yet he was not justified in the precipitation with which he ordered a shotted musket to be discharged in the direction of the vessel. His allegation is, that the man was ordered to fire high and that the ball glanced, but unfortunately the shot took effect, and resulted in the death of one of the seamen. It is but justice to the French Government to say, that no opportunity was given to Her Majesty's Government to make any remonstrance to the French Government on the subject, because Count Walewski, of his own accord, volunteered to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris a communication of the most satisfactory and handsome kind. He expressed the deep regret of the French Government at what had taken place, stating that orders had been given to dismiss from the French service the officer who had given orders to fire the fatal musket shot; and added, that the French Government were about to institute inquiries to ascertain in what way and to what degree they might mitigate the affliction of the family of the unfortunate seaman. Therefore, however lamentable the accident was, and however blameable the officer by whom the order was given, yet, as far as the French Government are concerned, nothing can be more honourable and proper than the manner of their proceeding towards the English Government on the subject.

said, it was his intention to make a Motion on this subject, but as he understood a Motion of a more comprehensive character would be brought before the House in a few days, he would at present simply move for a Return, showing on what tenure land is allowed to be held by Europeans in India, whether in fee simple, for life or lives, or for years; and, if so, for what terms of years, and whether renewable on payment of fines or otherwise; also, a corresponding Return showing to what extent ownership of land or settlement by Europeans has taken place in India, and under what tenures?

in rising for leave to bring in a Bill to dispense with the attendance of Grand Juries at the Central Criminal Court, and at Courts of General and Quarter Sessions, holden within the metropolitan police district, except in particular cases, said, that in proposing a measure of this kind, he was prepared to expect that those who had not had their attention called to the subject might regard with some apprehension an interference with a venerable institution, which they were accustomed to regard as essential to the fair administration of criminal justice, and one of the most important safeguards of the liberty of the subject. No doubt in its origin the system of grand juries attained these objects, but by recent changes in the criminal law, and an improved system of preliminary investigation of charges in the Metropolitan Police Courts, its usefulness had been considerably diminished, and the necessity of continuing the system in the metropolis became extremely questionable. The question was by no means new, for the subject of grand juries had attracted public attention for many years. A great deal of evidence in reference to it was taken before the Commission appointed in 1845, to inquire into the state of the criminal law, and afterwards the question of grand juries was again investigated by a Committee of that House. Observations had since fallen from Judges on the bench, complaints had been made by advocates, which had been echoed through the press, and year after year the grand juries of the Central Criminal Court and the Middlesex Sessions had been in the habit of presenting themselves, not only as of no utility, but as being an absolute impediment to the administration of justice. Nor had legislative attempts to abolish the system been wanting, although they were unsuccessful. In 1849, the late Sir J. Jervis brought in a Bill to facilitate the administration of justice in the metropolitan districts, which contained provisions rendering unnecessary the intervention of grand juries in criminal trials, That Bill was referred to a Select Committee, of which he Sir F. Thesiger had been a member, and by which a great number of experienced men had been examined. Amongst others, they examined the Clerk of the Central Criminal Court, the Common Serjeant of that day, Mr. Humphreys, a solicitor practising in the Central Criminal Court, and who had written an excellent pamphlet on grand juries, an alderman of the City of London, the Chairman of the Newington Sessions, and a merchant of the City of London, who had been foreman of grand juries for a great number of years. These witnesses expressed an unanimous opinion that it was desirable that grand juries should not be assembled within the metropolitan districts, and this opinion was supported by reasons which seemed to him to be unanswerable. Nothing, however, was done on this subject. But in the year 1852, the then Recorder of London, whose unfortunate illness was deeply to be deplored, and whoso high character and sound judgment it was to be hoped would yet be useful to his country, in a charge to the grand jury of the Central Criminal Court, after considerable experience of the working of this system, spoke in the following terms:—

"The great mass of the cases were, as usual, of the ordinary description, and many of their predecessors in that box had expressed an opinion that it was unnecessary that they should be called together for the purpose of considering such cases. With regard to the great body of them, which bad previously undergone full inquiry by magistrates of great experience and legal knowledge, he (the learned Recorder) entirely concurred in the opinion of the grand jury, that their services in this district were perfectly useless. He was afraid that the grand jury not only occasioned a very great loss of time, but that they also were the means of increasing very considerably the expenses of criminal prosecutions, and that in some instances the grand jury also afforded an opportunity for parties to defeat the purposes of justice by tampering with the witnesses, and that in others they were made the medium of occasioning great injustice, by affording vindictive persons an opportunity of preferring unfounded charges behind the backs of those they accused."

The grand jury at the same sessions made the following presentment:—

"The grand jury of the fifth session of the Central Criminal Court of the year 1852, beg leave to express their unanimous opinion that a grand jury within the limits of the jurisdiction of the stipendiary magistrates is wholly unnecessary. It increases the expense and adds to the delay of criminal prosecutions. It affords an opportunity for corruption and for tampering with prosecutors and witnesses. It enables an evil-disposed person to throw his victim into prison by a false ex parte statement made behind his back and without any previous notice. It is, in fact, an instrument of extortion and of oppression, and as it frustrates the ends of justice it is worse than useless, and ought to be immediately abolished. The grand jury having been informed that, presentments to the same effect have been made by other grand juries; that copies of several of these presentments have been laid before the House of Commons on the motion of Mr. Matthew Forster, the Member for Berwick; that a Committee of the House of Commons appointed to investigate the subject reported that such a tribunal had become unnecessary; that a Bill was introduced into Parliament by the present Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Right Hon. Sir John Jervis, to abolish it, but which Bill was allowed to be dropped by the late Ministry; they consider that to suffer its continuance in opposition to the often recorded opinions of those best qualified to judge of its utility has a tendency to bring into contempt not only the administration of justice, but the laws of the country. The grand jury, therefore, request that a copy of this presentment may be forwarded to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for the Home Department of Her Majesty's new Ministry, and they hope that a Bill to abolish the grand jury of the Central Criminal Court and of the Middlesex Sessions, will form a part of their earliest measures of law reform."

In that year (1852) he (Sir F. Thesiger), as Attorney General under Lord Derby's Government, introduced a Bill to dispense with grand juries within the metropolitan district, but he was compelled to withdraw it in consequence of the dissolution which shortly afterwards took place. These facts showed that this question was not a new one, and also furnished the reason why he, a private Member, now brought forward this measure. He had not, however, presumed to interfere in the matter without previous communication with the Government; and from what had taken place he did not believe that Her Majesty's Ministers were at all dissatisfied with the Motion. On the contrary, he anticipated the cordial support of the law officers of the Crown on that occasion. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Hear, hear!] His observations might be supposed to apply to grand juries in general; but he wished it to be understood that he was not prepared to prevent the assembling of grand juries in the provinces. He deemed it advantageous to the public that magistrates and gentlemen of the enmities should be associated with the Judges in their periodical administration of criminal justice throughout the country. The appointment of a public prosecutor or the adoption of some improved system of preliminary investigation into offences might hereafter render it necessary to consider the whole subject of grand juries; but he strictly confined himself at present to the case of the metropolitan district, to which any sound arguments against grand juries in general would apply with peculiar force. It was superfluous to employ any antiquarian research in now discussing this question. Suffice it to say that grand juries were originally clothed with the character of public accusers—they presented crimes to the Justices in Eyre and had the power of committing prisoners; but in the reign of Edward III., when justices of the peace were introduced, their functions underwent a change. Ultimately, instead of possessing any original jurisdiction, a grand jury became merely a tribunal to receive evidence and decide whether there was a primâ facie case for sending accused persons to take their trial. This was a most important duty which could be safely and conveniently superseded only where a better system had been provided. This was precisely the case of the metropolitan police district, where magistrates of great experience and legal talent acted continually in the face of the public. Their principal functions consisted of receiving charges against alleged offenders, and of examining witnesses in the presence of the accused, who was confronted with his accusers, and had an opportunity of cross-examining them and the rest of the witnesses, and giving any explanation he thought right to offer. After a careful investigation, conducted under the most favourable circumstances for arriving at a correct decision, the magistrate determined whether there were sufficient grounds for sending the prisoner to trial. The depositions originally taken were transmitted to the court to which the offender was committed, and every formality essential to the protection of the public and to the prevention of unfounded charges was completed; and one would certainly suppose that, under these circumstances, everything had been done that could be required, and that the court might immediately proceed with the trial. But another preliminary ceremony had to be gone through before the trial. Twenty-three gentlemen, generally unaccustomed to legal inquiries, were collected together in a private room, where, with closed doors, under an oath of secrecy, and in the absence of the accused, they proceeded to reinvestigate the very point already determined by the committing magistrate—namely, whether there was a primâ facie case for putting the person charged upon his trial. With nothing to guide them but the indictment containing the accusation and a list of the names of the witnesses on the back of it, they had to grope their way in the dark, frequently through a labyrinth of complicated facts, and this after the whole matter had been decided for them by the police magistrate. If the grand jury, under these unfavourable circumstances, found a true bill their labours were perfectly supererogatory. If, on the other hand, they threw out the bill, their interference was often purely mischievous. Justice in their hands was liable to miscarry, either from a misconception as to their own functions, some jurymen imagining that they had to decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused; or from the witnesses being tampered with and induced to suppress the evidence they had previously given when before the magistrates. This the witnesses could do in perfect security, because their examination before the grand jury was conducted in secrecy. In fact, the grand jury system multiplied the chances of escape for the guilty to such an extent that it was called "the hope of the London thieves." The innocent would be benefited by the change he proposed, because, after such a person had been once committed by a magistrate, his innocence would be established in the face of the country if he took his trial; whereas a suspicion would probably still attach to him, even though the grand jury had thrown out the bill against him, owing to the reasons for their decision being unknown to the public. As an illustration of the present system, he thought he could not mention anything more forcible than a case which occurred last year in his own experience. The medical attendant of a county lunatic asylum, after having been assaulted by a patient, directed him to be taken to a shower-bath, to be kept there for half an hour, and afterwards to have a dose of tartar emetic. The unfortunate man was placed in the shower-bath, and after having been kept there for twenty-eight minutes he was removed, the medicine which had been prescribed was given to him, and in half an hour afterwards he died. He (Sir F. Thesiger) did not venture to express any opinion with regard to the conduct of the medical man. The treatment which he ordered might have been necessary to his patient; but nobody could doubt that that was a subject which ought to have undergone a most searching public investigation. And so thought one of the most able, intelligent, and experienced of the police magistrates (Mr. Henry) before whom the charge was made against the medical man; for, after having carefully examined the whole of the case, he thought it was his duty to send the patty for trial. The grand jury, however, for reasons which were unknown, chose to think that it was not a case for inquiry, and they threw out the bill. He (Sir F. Thesiger) could multiply these instances if necessary; but he thought that the illustration which he had given was sufficient to show the mischief which might arise from allowing a grand jury to interfere between the public investigation before a magistrate and the trial in the Superior Court, which was not only a protection to the party accused, but also to the public against the possibility of the accused party escaping from justice. But the mere throwing out of bills by grand juries in such cases was not one half of the evil consequent upon this system within the metropolitan district. He believed that there was hardly a Session of the Central Criminal Court or a Middlesex Session held without persons preferring indictments for different classes of misdemeanour for the purpose of revenge or extortion. The particular misdemeanours which were generally made the subject of these accusations were conspiracy, perjury, keeping gaming or disorderly houses, and obtaining money under false pretences. It was not at all necessary that the parties should go before a magistrate to prefer accusations of that description. If a person was desirous of gratifying his malice or extorting money he might wait for the assembling of the grand jury, and then, without the slightest notice to the party, he might prefer his indictment. The proceedings were altogether secret. If the party got his bill, application might be made at once for a Bench warrant; and Saturday was the day generally selected for that purpose, because then the party must remain in custody for nearly two days before bail could be given. Having secured that engine of extortion, it was set to work, and the accusing party had good grounds for hoping that the accused would compromise the matter with him, rather than submit to the exposure of a public trial. Provision was intended to be made against such cases by the Central Criminal Court Act, and the manner in which that provision was defeated was a curious instance of the subtlety and evasiveness of fraud. That Act provided that no indictment for misdemeanour, except for perjury, should be presented at the Central Criminal Court unless the party was in custody, or unless the prosecutor was bound in recognizances. That of course was to necessitate the intervention of a magistrate, but, inasmuch as the Central Criminal Court was the only Court mentioned, parties had been in the habit of going to the Middlesex Sessions, and of there procuring the grand jury to find bills of this description. They then removed them to the Central Criminal Court. No recognizances at all were entered into, and so they evaded the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Misdemeanours were still presented to the grand jury without any previous investigation before a magistrate. With regard to recognizances the course which they pursued was this—they went to a magistrate and said, "We want to prosecute A B for fraud or conspiracy; bind us over in recognizances;" and without any investigation of the facts the magistrate bound them over. Now, the consequence of these proceedings were most alarming, find he could not help giving one or two instances which had occurred within his own knowledge. A lady of undoubted respectability was indicted in this secret manner for keeping a brothel by a person who, as was afterwards ascertained, had been under sentence of transportation. She appeared on the day fixed for the trial, but neither the prosecutor nor his witnesses attended. She had the owner of the house in court to show that her apartments had always been occupied by families of the highest respectability. Of course an acquittal took place immediately, but it was impossible for that lady to avoid the suspicion which was excited in many minds that the prosecutor and his witnesses had been bought off. In another case, a person of great respectability, a banker and solicitor in the county of Surrey, had two indictments preferred against him—one for forgery and one for conspiracy. The party who preferred them had made three similar experiments at the Central Criminal Court and one at the Middlesex Sessions, but without success. But by perseverance he obtained his bills of indictment, and the trial came on before Lord Campbell. The result was an acquittal, accompanied with the applause of the persons in court, Lord Campbell stating to the jury that he had no doubt they would feel that there was not the slightest imputation upon the gentleman's character from the proceedings. He offered these instances as samples, not of what might take place, but of what actually did take place under the present system. Whether a party so accused were innocent or guilty the effect was much the same. Many an innocent party might not not have the nerve to stand a public trial. It might be that he was accused of some infamous offence without the slightest foundation. He shrank from the idea of appearing in public, and was therefore willing to pay a very large sum in order to induce the withdrawal of the prosecution. If the party was guilty there was an additional motive for making a compromise with his prosecutor in that manner, and persons had been found to make a trade of preferring indictments in order to convert them into instruments of the most infamous extortion. Now, the remedy which he (Sir F. Thesiger) proposed was very simple. He proposed that no charge should be tried in the Central Criminal Court, or in the other courts within the metropolitan police district, without a previous investigation before a magistrate. When that had taken place, no inquiry before a grand jury would be necessary, and he therefore proposed to dispense with the attendance of a grand jury at the sessions in the metropolitan districts altogether in such cases. Various subordinate advantages would arise from the measure. In the first place, there would be a very considerable saving of time and expense. Under the present system prosecutors and their witnesses were bound to attend in the first place before the clerk of indictments, for the purpose of being examined with a view to preparing their depositions and the indictment. They Lad then to go before the grand jury; but it frequently happened that they were obliged to remain for two or three days before their case came on. Then the grand jury examined the witnesses; but if a bill was found, they had to wait a day or two more for the trial, so that, in fact, four or five days were consumed, during which parties were neglecting their business, while several hundred persons of different sexes were thus collected together under circumstances which were certainly not advantageous to their morality. The inconvenience, expense, and delay arising from these circumstances were so great that many persons were deterred from prosecuting. Then, again, the expense was no inconsiderable element for consideration. No doubt the witnesses were paid small sums, ranging from 1s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. per day, but when this was multiplied by several days, by hundreds of offences, and by twelve Sessions a year, it would be found that the aggregate amount was a very considerable one, and a large saving would necessarily take place by the plan he proposed. Under the new system the clerk of indictments would prepare a list of cases, so that persons would be able to ascertain when their cases were likely to be tried, and would only attend on that day. The business of the Session might be thus most conveniently arranged, a great saving of time and money would be effected, and public justice in this district would undoubtedly be greatly facilitated. He felt that he need not occupy any longer the time of the House. It was quite sufficient to say that all those whoso attention had been called to this subject—whether Judges of the Superior or of Criminal Courts, grand jurors, barristers, solicitors, or magistrates—all concurred in the opinion that within this particular district there was no necessity whatever to continue the assembling of grand juries, but that the present system was rather detrimental than conducive to the administration of justice. He was sure that after the observations which he had addressed to the House, hon. Members would not wonder that he had interfered in this matter, but would rather be surprised that the existing system had been allowed to continue so long, and that it had not long before been put an end to. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to dispense with the attendance of grand juries at the Central Criminal Court, and at Courts of General and Quarter Sessions holden within the metropolitan police district, except in particular cases.

seconded the Motion.

My hon. and learned Friend is quite right in his anticipation that he will not only have the concurrence, but the cordial support, of the Government in the measure which he has asked leave to introduce. I can only mention, by way of apology for such a measure not having at an earlier period been brought forward by the Government, the circumstance that we were desirous of introducing it, together with some largo and comprehensive plan on the subject of the approintment of a public prosecutor, which has been so long a matter of general deliberation and necessity. I cannot, however, be sorry that the measure falls into the hands of my hon. and learned Friend, to whom I may say, having regard to his former efforts in this matter, it may be regarded as legitimately belonging. It is, indeed, a matter of melancholy reflection that under cover of respect for what is commonly deemed one of our venerable institutions, a system should have so long been continued which is proved by the speech of my hon. and learned Friend to be the source of mischief, of obstruction to justice, and even an instrument facilitating corruption in the administration of justice. I am very glad, therefore, that the House has heard the statement made by an authority of the experience of my hon. and learned Friend. I should only weaken the force of that statement if I attempted to add instances which have occurred within my own observation, necessarily limited as that has been so far as regards the administration of the criminal law. I can only assure the House that the subject of the appointment of a public prosecutor (I use that phrase, not as binding myself to the appointment of any officer answering to that title, but as the denomination merely of some system for the regulation of prosecutions throughout the country) is one still under the consideration of the Government; and if it had not been for the lamented circumstance to which my hon. and learned Friend has so feelingly referred—I mean the unfortunate manner in which we were deprived of the services of the late Solicitor General—a plan upon that subject would have been some time since laid before the House. In conclusion, I can only again promise my hon. and learned Friend every opportunity for facilitating the progress of his measure.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but at the same time, admitting the force of many of the arguments which had been urged as to the inconveniences attending the system of grand juries, it behoved the House to consider very seriously and with the utmost possible care a change in a fundamental principle of the law of England, and so great an innovation as that which would allow a man to be put on his trial for felony or treason [Sir F. THESIGER: No, not for treason!] well, for felony, without a bill found by a grand jury, and merely at the will of a magistrate removable at the pleasure of the Grown. He did not mean to say that magistrates would not do their duty honestly. Under ordinary circumstances, undoubtedly they would. But it was very easy to conceive circumstances arising in which the safeguard afforded to the subject by the institution of grand juries might be of essential importance. If, too, it were important generally, the grand-jury system was particularly important in London and Middlesex, where cases of a political nature were, perhaps, more likely to arise than in almost any other part of the kingdom. The very exception with regard to treason which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made was an admission of the force of the arguments which he (Mr. Bowyer) was urging upon the House. In cases of treason the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to preserve the grand jury, because he felt that in political trials the safeguard afforded by that system was essential to the liberty of the subject. But might not other cases, not of treason, but bearing the same political complexion, easily arise? He need not go back to past history to prove the possibility of this. An indictment for assault or for murder, a riot, or a case in which the rights of the subject were thought to have been invaded by an officer of the Crown—all these might involve political questions, in which it was most important that the people should have every protection from the danger of unfair bias, and yet a magistrate removable at the pleasure of the Crown, in communication with the Home Office, and acting, probably, under instructions from the Secretary of State, would have it in his power to put a man on his trial in these cases. Let him remind the House with what care the constitution of this country had fenced round the trial of prisoners. The only instance in which a man could be put on his trial on indictment without a grand jury was for misdemeanour, upon a criminal information. Now, criminal informations were sometimes laid by the Attorney General, who was conspicuously responsible to the House and to the country for the manner in which he discharged his duties; in other cases application must be made to the Court of Queen's Bench, the highest criminal court in the country, except the House of Lords. Again, when a coroner's inquest was held, and a verdict of murder was returned, a person might be brought to trial without the intervention of a grand jury, but even then it was always usual to go before a grand jury before the prisoner was put on his trial. All the greatest legal authorities of England had declared that no man could be put in jeopardy for life or limb otherwise than by the finding of twenty-four jurors—the finding of a bill by twelve jurors, and the conviction by twelve others. It had been said that in the case of proceedings before a grand jury corruption was used to prevent witnesses from appearing; but might not the same thing arise in proceedings before magistrates? The only way of preventing such corruption was the appointment of a public prosecutor, whose duty it would be to see persons brought to justice, and that no tampering took place. He acknowledged that the issue of bench warrants against men who had no previous notice that an indictment was preferred against them was a grievance. But it was one that might be obviated by enacting that no indictment should be presented in London until a charge had been previously preferred before a magistrate. He trusted that the House would not sanction a departure from principles which were essential to the liberty of the subject, and which formed a fundamental portion of the constitution of the country.

, on, rising to move that the petition of the members of the Land Transport Corps presented on the 12th of May last be referred to a Select Committee, expressed his regret that he was obliged to ask the House to reappoint the Committee upon this subject to which the late Parliament had assented. He regretted it, because he had hoped that in the lapse of time which had occurred since the House had agreed to his original Motion, justice would have been done to the Land Transport Corps by the Authorities themselves, and he had reason to believe it, because, when the day arrived for the appointment of the Committee he was asked by the then Under Secretary for War to explain to him what it was exactly that these persons required, and he then informed the Under Secretary that they required, as stated in their petition, that the conditions of their original enlistment should be strictly fulfilled. After that he attended, by invitation, at the Ordnance-office. Many of the members of the Land Transport Corps attended also, and he brought them face to face with the Director General of the Corps, Colonel M'Murdo. The Under Secretary for War was also there, but as he did not appear to know much about military matter he was assisted by Sir Henry Storks, and he must say that he never saw a department in a greater state of confusion in his life than that same War Department was upon that occasion, Those gentlemen heard what the men had to say, and, so far as he could judge, they seemed to think there was some justice in their complaints. The interview ended by Sir Henry Storks taking down their names and addresses; he stated that he could give no answer in the absence of his superior, but that either he (Mr. Duncombe) or they should hear from him shortly on the subject. He was satisfied with that assurance, and he thereupon withdrew the nomination of the Committee. The general election followed, and from that day to the present the War Department had made no communication to him upon the subject, and had taken no notice whatever of the claims of those men. Nothing remained for him, therefore, but to ask the House to reappoint the Committee, and to allow these claims to be investigated. No doubt the Government had discovered in the meantime that rather awkward disclosures would be made if the Committee were allowed to sit, but that was no fault of his; they should have kept their faith with these men. Now, what the petitioners required was that the conditions on which they had enlisted should be fulfilled. They had enlisted for ten or twelve years, as Her Majesty should think fit, with the option of terminating their engagement at the expiration of five years, or at the end of the war. They had been promised free clothing and free rations, but both had been stopped out of their pay. They had also been promised fifty days' pay in advance on their embarkation, in order that they might make some provision for their families, but it had not been given them. About 2,100 of these men received no bounty and 2s. 6d. per day, and 7,000 of them received a bounty and 1s. 8d. per day. They had served in the Crimea nearly twelve months; many of them had died there; those who survived had discharged their duties well and had obtained the Crimean medal, and some of them might now be seen begging or selling pencils about the streets in a state of penury, with the medal on their breasts, while £10, or £12, or £14 of pay was still due to them. The first notice that they had upon their landing was that they were disbanded—they were just told in so many words, "Go about your business; here's your discharge, and 20s. to get home with as you can." It should be observed that there was no complaint with respect to those who were ill when they landed, and who were taken to Chatham and placed in the hospital, for they had been discharged in regular form; but there could be no doubt that that the other men had been improperly discharged. By the rules and regulations of the service it was provided that before a soldier should be permitted to leave the corps to which he belonged, preparatory to his removal from the service under any circumstances whatever, a regimental Board should be assembled to investigate, certify, and record as to his services, ability, character, accounts, and claims; and it was further provided that every soldier on being finally discharged should be furnished with a parchment certificate according to the prescribed form, which was to be confirmed in the Adjutant General's Department before being delivered to the man. But, instead of giving these men a parchment discharge, an old-looking paper was furnished to them all scratched over, so that no one could tell whether or not it was a legal document, or that the men had not made the alterations in it themselves. The men had a right to insist on receiving the prescribed parchment form of discharge, but that had been refused to them, and they had been told that this scratched paper was quite a sufficient protection to them. It was not, however, a protection to them, because many of these men had gone to firms and houses in the metropolis and been refused employment, being told that they had not got a legal discharge. Some had tried to emigrate, but had been refused permission to go on board the emigration ships, on the ground that it could not be told whether or not they were deserters. Thus the men could not obtain an honest livelihood by their industry, because they had been deprived of the legal document testifying their discharge to which they were entitled. Now, let the manner in which Englishmen, who had served the country well for twelve months in the Crimea, had been treated be contrasted with the conduct pursued towards the Foreign Legions. The men of the Land Transport Corps asked, at all events, for some gratuity if they were turned adrift. Well, the Turkish Contingent got six months' pay, and the Swiss one year's pay. The Italian Legion also got one year's pay and the offer of a free passage to South America. Look again at the German Legion—they got one year's pay and a free passage for themselves and their wives to the Cape, and a grant of land on their arrival. Yet not one of those parties ever set foot in the Crimea, while the Land Transport Corps had been there for twelve months. It was time that justice should be done to our own countrymen, and these German and other foreign predilections put an end to. This was partly the case he stated to the last Parliament, and he would not weary the House by going further into it now. He could not believe that a rumour he had heard was correct, that this investigation, which was granted in the last Parliament, was now, as it was likely to be inconvenient to certain parties, to be opposed, but, as he would not believe that the House would so stultify itself as to refuse now what it had granted in the last Parliament, he should therefore conclude by moving, That a Select Committee be appointed to examine into the allegations contained in the Petition of the Land Transport Corps presented on the 12th day of May last, complaining that the War Department had not fulfilled the conditions under which they had enlisted.

seconded the Motion. He said the question was worthy the consideration of the Government and the House. It involved the case of men who suddenly left their homes for foreign shores in the service of their country. A portion of these poor men, whose services were called for at a time of emergency, went to the Crimea, and others went to Varna, and had undergone great hardships. Their pay was not large—certainly not large enough to cover the risk of a specific contract not being carried into effect. According to the memorial, the contract made with them on quitting England was, that they were to have either a gratuity of three months' pay on dismissal or three months' notice of discharge. But these arrangements had not been carried out, and he thought it was only fair to the members of the Land Transport Corps that they should have an opportunity of stating their case, while he had sufficient confidence in the noble Lord, and the Government generally, to believe that they would do justice to them, and that that contract would be strictly carried out.

could not admit that these men had any just ground of complaint, because he thought that the mere difference between a paper and a parchment discharge was not a material point, and he understood also that in any case when application was made for a parchment discharge, instead of a paper one, the application was complied with. This question was discussed in the last Session of the last Parliament, and his right hon. Friend the then Under Secretary for War explained to the House the grounds on which the Government thought that these men had really no just or well-grounded cause of complaint. Nevertheless, the Government then consented so far to the Motion that they agreed to the appointment of a Committee, and that Committee would have sat, but for the early dissolution of Parliament. As the Government at that time consented to refer the question to a Committee, he did not feel, though his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury had allowed a good deal of time to elapse before moving again for the Committee, that the question stood now on different grounds, sufficient to justify the Government in objecting to the appointment of a Committee they before agreed to. He only hoped that his hon. Friend and the House would not found any false or exaggerated expectations on the consent of the Government, who retained their opinion, but, having agreed to the appointment of a Committee before, they were prepared to agree to it now.

seconded the Motion. The evil which the Bill was designed to correct was one of immense magnitude, and he regretted that in the late case of Bremer v. Freeman—a decision which had taken the profession by surprise—the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could not find reasons for coming to an opposite conclusion. That decision, so far from furthering the intention of the testatrix, went to disappoint it. The testatrix had done nothing to shake off her right as a British subject. She had, it was true, for several years resided abroad; but the effect of the decision of the Privy Council was, that while in every other respect that lady must be considered a British subject, in the disposition of her properly she must be regarded as a foreigner. Seeing that many thousands of our countrymen resided on the Continent it was a serious thing that in the disposal of the property or such persons a question such as that now under discussion should arise. The question of domicile which was raised in such cases was one of the most difficult as well as expensive that could come before the courts. A case was now going on in the Court of Chancery in which a gentleman of very large property, of peculiar and eccentric habits, who died four or five years ago, left the bulk of his property, amounting to about £100,000, to found a charity in the town of Southampton. It was supposed at first that the only question for the court was whether the words were sufficient to found a charity, but as it appeared in the progress of the suit he had resided in France for many years, at first at Boulogne and then at Paris, though having all his property here, and coming occasionally to see it, the question was suggested whether, although his will was made according to the English form, he had not acquired a French domicile. A special examiner was appointed to take the evidence on this subject, and to illustrate the difficulty and expense of these inquiries he might state that the examiner had been engaged for fourteen days in England and forty-two in France in taking evidence on the question whether that English gentleman, who had resided in France for a number of years, had not thrown off his English and acquired a French domicile, and the case still stood for decision. He rejoiced that his hon. and learned Friend had brought in a Bill on the subject, and he trusted that every facility would be afforded him by the Government in passing it through Parliament. He was afraid that, after the decisions of the Privy Council declaring some of these wills invalid, it would be going too far to say that the Bill should be retrospective in its operations, yet it might be worthy of consideration whether Parliament could not justly go even to this extent, and he should greatly rejoice to see the measure made retrospective if it could be justly done.

said, that the subject to which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Suffolk had invited attention was one of no common importance, and he trusted that it would not be treated by the House as a legal question, but one of general importance, which every Member of that House was competent to appreciate and form an opinion upon. He did not intend to oppose the introduction of the Bill, coming, as it did, from such high authority, and also because the subject itself was unquestionably one deserving of discussion, but he must entreat the attention of the House to the difficulties of the subject and the qualifications with which his vote in favour of leave to introduce the Bill must be given. They would all agree with him that it was extremely desirable for the jurisprudence of every country to preserve untouched and unimpaired those maxims of law which were common to the jurisprudence of all civilized countries. Nothing could be more important than that there should be a community of thought between the civilized nations of Europe on questions of perpetual recurrence. Not only would there be the greatest inconvenience, but the greatest amount of distress, if the rule in one country were different from that which prevailed in another. The origin of the rule which had been impugned by his hon. and learned Friend was a general maxim that had prevailed in Europe from the earliest time—namely, from the earliest establishment of the principles of Roman Law. That maxim was expressed in the words—mobilia sequuntur personam, which meant that the personal estate of the testator accompanied him wherever he might reside and become domiciled, and thence he acquired the right of disposing of it and dealing with it according to the law of that country. In consequence of that rule of law, if a man died in a foreign country, in which he might be domicile, the distribution of his personal property fell naturally within the jurisdiction of the courts of that country in which he was domiciled at the time of his death. This was a universal rule in all the countries of civilized Europe, and they had conceded to us, and we had conceded to them, that the judges of the country in which the testator was domiciled at the time of his death became the persons to determine the question of testacy or intestacy. They could not withdraw the question of testacy or intestacy from those judges without impairing the force of the maxim to which he had referred, and this he (the Attorney General) thought was a dangerous step to take. If there were a common consent on the part of all the nations of Europe to adopt the rule recommended for England by his hon. and learned Friend, there might be less objection to his proposition; but, while there was a want of that common consent, the making of an exceptional experiment in England was much to be deprecated. He (the Attorney General) was opposed to the introduction into this country of a rule peculiar to itself that would derogate from the universally recognized maxim of jurisprudence handed down to us through a long succession of ages, and which undoubtedy had the great advantage that every nation in Europe knew with certainty the principle that governed this particular case. There was an inconvenience which his hon. and learned Friend's Bill would not in the smallest degree touch he meant the present uncertainty of the law in determining questions of domicile. He agreed that the question of domicile of necessity entered into the application of the rule of jurisprudence to which he had alluded; but the difficulty to which the attention of the Legislature ought to be directed would be the furnishing of a rule by which questions of domicile might be decided, rather than to the making of any attempt to engraft on the jurisprudence of this country an exception to the general maxim above described. Some cases of hardship would always accompany adherence to a general rule; but, on the other hand, would there be no practical inconvenience attending the introduction of exceptional legislation? Assuming that we adopted for ourselves a different rule from that followed by other nations, if a person domiciled in France died possessed of property in the French funds and also in the English funds, the result would be that we should be claiming the right here to give effect to a will operative according to our exceptional law, but of no validity according to the French law; and tenfold the amount of difficulty and inconvenience at present experienced would ensue from the conflict between the institutions of the, two countries. Thus the evil which this measure sought to remedy would only be aggravated by its adoption. He regretted that his hon. and learned Friend who had striven with all his great abilities to enforce his views on the Privy Council but without success, should not have allowed a longer time to elapse before he appealed to that House; because the decision of the Privy Council was in strict conformity with the judgments of all the eminent men on the bench who were qualified to determine the question at issue. It was most inconvenient that a decision, which at the moment naturally appeared to be wrong in the eyes of the advocate against whom it was given, should be brought before Parliament while the excitement to which the subject had given rise still precluded the cool deliberation essential to wise legislation. He was sorry, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to introduce this Bill, contemplating, as it did, the establishment in this country of a rule that would not be common to the rest of Europe. It was most desirable, now that the interchange between different countries was so rapid, easy, and general, that there should be as few conflicts between their respective systems of jurisprudence as possible, and that the judgments of the courts of one nation should be readily accepted by the courts of another; but if they set up a peculiar law of our own in opposition to the law which generally prevailed, they should raise up a great obstacle to the attainment of that object. The Government were not, however, disposed to resist the introduction of the Bill, although, for the reasons he had assigned, they could not promise the hon. and learned Gentleman their co-operation in passing it through its subsequent stages. He should ask hon. Gentlemen to exercise their own opinions on this measure when it came before them, and not accede to it unless they were of opinion that it was required, not merely because inconvenience had been felt in a particular case, but as an improvement on that measure of jurisprudence which England had so long held in common with the other nations of Europe.

asked the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved for leave to bring in the Bill for an explanation as to whether the measure proposed would in any way interfere with the jurisdiction of the legal tribunals of other countries in respect of property in those countries?

would ask the permission of the House to reply to the question just put to him, and to make a few observations in answer to some of the statements of his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General). He meant to have stated in introducing the Bill that he did not seek in any way to interfere with the jurisdiction of foreign countries in respect of property situate in those countries. It would not be competent to the British Parliament to legislate for foreign countries, and, therefore, he could not propose to interfere with the jurisdiction appertaining to the tribunals of those, countries. But with reference to the particular question, he conceived, however, that by the law of France, when a British subject, whether he happened to be residing there or not, made a will according to the forms of the law of England, and died possessed of property in France, if the probate of the will were taken to France, every Court in that country would give effect to it. There were instances of this being the case within his own experience, and he believed that by the comity of nations the Courts of every other nation in Europe would pursue a similar course. But if in France, or any other country in Europe where the property of the deceased person was found, whether by reason of the residence of the deceased there, or for any other reason, the law would not recognize and give effect to the probate of a will granted by our own Courts, then the Bill would not interfere with the law of that country. He might say in general that the measure would have no effect, and did not profess to have any effect, upon the law, or the administration of the law, in any foreign country whatever. He joined with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General in appealing, not to members of the legal profession alone, but to every intelligent Gentleman who had a voice in either House of Parliament, upon the single, simple, and plain question which was raised by the Bill. It was a question, not of law, but of policy—a question of policy in which every subject of this realm who might by possibility go abroad, reside abroad, or even die abroad, possessed or might possess a deep personal interest. The question was, whether it was expedient, if a British subject residing abroad sought to dispose of his properly, and to provide for the different necessities of his family, by means of a British will made according to the forms of British law, that that will should be valid or void? And when the measure should have been discussed, and fully understood by all the Members of the House, he should be greatly surprised if it met with a single dissentient voice.

said, that responding to the appeal which the Attorney General had made to the common sense of the House, he would thus early in the debate make this one observation—that, after all, the gist of the matter was, what should define domicile, and did not so much turn on the comity of nations. He agreed with the Attorney General as to that; but surely there was nothing which could so clearly define the animus of domicile as the form in which the testator had made his will! An Englishman goes abroad, and lives there, say twenty years, but left his English will under lock and key in England. Surely there was the strongest proof in this that his animus was to continue a British subject, though he was not domiciled in his fatherland! It seemed to him (Mr. Hope) that on the principle laid down so ingeniously by the Attorney General the House ought to give to the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend that favourable consideration which the Attorney General seemed disinclined to give it, on the plain common-sense principle that the most convincing proof of domicile was formed by that document by which the testator left what belonged to him to his assigns for ever. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would pass the Bill through all its stages, and that ere long it would become the law of the land, and thus save the travel loving subjects of this country from the frightful danger to which they were exposed from the existing uncertainty on this subject.

regretted that the Attorney General had given a merely qualified approbation to the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend. The only fault which he (Mr. Bowyer) found with it was, that it did not go far enough; and he trusted that when the Bill was in Committee his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly) would make it more complete. There were two principles of international law which governed this subject. One was expressed in the maxim, lex loci regit actum, or that the law of the locality in which the act was performed regulated the legality of the act there performed; the other was, that where an act was done to take effect in and having reference to another place than where it was done, it might be valid if executed according to the law of the place where it was to take effect. Now, this Bill proposed to deal with merely the second of those principles, which was only the exception, while the first was the rule. If a marriage were celebrated in a foreign country according to the forms required in that country, that marriage would be held valid in England and all the world over. Domicile had nothing to do with such a case, and the law with regard to a will ought to be the same as with regard to a contract. A person who had occasion to execute a testamentary paper abroad was in a manner compelled to have recourse to such legal assistance as the country in which he happened to be placed supplied. In the case of Lord Hertford, the Privy Council departed from the law of nations. Lord Hertford had executed a codicil to his will in Milan, in the Milanese form, and the Privy Council held that as his Lordship was an English nobleman, with large estates in this country, he could not be presumed to have abandoned the animus revertendi, and they therefore held that the codicil was invalid, Lord Hertford having retained his English domicile, and having executed the codicil in a foreign form. A will executed abroad, according to the law of the country where it is executed, ought to be valid by the law of England, whatever might be the domicile of the party. If they passed an enactment to that effect, they would put an end to two-thirds or more of the difficult questions of domicile which were constantly arising in our Courts, and the decisions upon which were so unsatisfactory. At the same time it would be very desirable and convenient, as his hon. and learned Friend proposed, that an English subject, when in a foreign country, should have the option of making his will according to the law of his own land. Now, how could this clash with the law of the country in which he resided? The will was not intended to take effect in that country; it would operate only in England, and with regard to English property, and it appeared to him that this would be a provision of great practical utility and convenience, and certainly not contrary to any rule of international law.

said, he rose for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the laws respecting lunatics in Scotland, in pursuance of the undertaking given by the Government upon the discussion raised the other day by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. E. Ellice). The Report which had been laid upon the table of the House by the Commissioners contained unquestionably a great deal that had struck the public as both new and important, and a great deal which demanded the serious consideration of the Legislature. With respect to that Report, it was only due to the Commissioners who prepared it to say, that it bore the marks of great ability, industry, and research, and he thought those gentlemen had laid the country under a deep obligation for their services. As to the observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. E. Ellice), he certainly rejoiced that the subject had been brought before the House with so much ability and in so striking a manner; but there was one part of his hon. Friend's statement which he certainly wished had been omitted. The Report presented by the Commissioners was never intended as, and was not, a Report upon the conduct of officials or of public men. The subject of their inquiry was, as to the state and practice of the law of lunacy in Scotland, and the object of their Report was to amend that law—an object for which he thought their Report was most admirably calculated. To take that Report, however, and make it, as it stood, the groundwork of grave accusations against officials who might be referred to in it, without knowing what explanation or statement these officials might make, was to use it for an object for which it was never intended, and for which it was not adapted; because, while many of the statements contained in it were most valuable as a basis for legislation, if the Commissioners had intended to inquire into the conduct of officials then investigation must have been much more extensive and the examination of parties much wider than they had been. His hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's, however, led away a little probably by a pre-possession which he held very strongly, had made the Report of the Commissioners the groundwork of various remarks with regard to the Board of Supervision. He (the Lord Advocate) made no reply to those observations the other night beyond stating that only one side of the question was then laid before the House; but, having sat upon that Board himself for at least a year, and knowing the way in which it had been administered by the right hon. Gentleman who presided over it, he felt confident that the remarks of his hon. Friend would hardly be justified to their full extent by the facts; and he had now received a statement from Sir John M'Neill with regard to these matters, the substance of which he felt bound to submit to the House. One would have imagined from the statement of his hon. Friend the other evening that, while pauper lunatics in Scotland were grossly neglected, the Board of Supervision had represented the law as sufficient, and their administration of it as satisfactory. The very reverse was the case, for in the year 1846, in their very first Report, the Board stated that the accommodation in the asylums was not equal to that required for one-tenth of the number of pauper lunatics, and that they found a state of things existing in which it was utterly impossible to carry out the law, because there was no accommodation for the reception of the lunatics. That was the statement contained in the very first Report of the Board, and in consequence of it Lord Rutherfurd, the then Lord Advocate, moved in 1847 for Returns showing the number of pauper lunatics in Scotland and the accommodation provided for them; and, founded upon those Returns, the learned Lord introduced a Bill for remedying the law of lunacy in 1848. It was important, also, to call attention to the fact, that in the same year Sir J. M'Neill was examined before the Select Committee on Miscellaneous Expenditure, and in his evidence upon that occasion he went fully into the whole question of the treatment of pauper lunatics, and he stated in the strongest manner that until sufficient accommodation was provided it would be impossible to carry out the law as it stood, and still more to treat lunatics as they ought to be treated. He would not trouble the House by going through the whole of that evidence, but he might safely say that there was scarcely one of the recommendations made by the Commissioners in their recent Report which was not to be found in the evidence of Sir J. M'Neill in 1848. Lord Rutherfurd's Bill being lost in 1848, the learned Lord re-introduced it in 1849, but was obliged to withdraw it; and from that time to this he was not aware that the subject had ever been noticed in that House, not even by his hon. Friend, although the Board of Supervision in their Reports still continued to call the attention of the Legislature to the imperfect state of the law and of the accommodation provided for pauper lunatics. It was stated the other evening, that the Reports which were made by the inspectors and medical officers were not true or correct; but Sir J. M'Neill said that they were thoroughly and completely true; and he (the Lord Advocate) might observe that it seemed to have been forgotten, that the only lunatics over whom the Board of Supervision had any regular authority were those who, under the dispensing power of the Act, were not sent to the asylums, and that the lunatic wards of the poor-houses were not under the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervision, but were under the Sheriffs. With respect to these last, he had the authority of Sir J. M'Neill for stating that special half-yearly Reports were sent in to the Board, giving full particulars with regard to every lunatic under their charge, in addition to an annual return from the medical officer, giving a particular report of the state of every lunatic under his charge. With respect to the details of the cases mentioned by the Commissioners he (the Lord Advocate) had nothing to say. He was quite ready to accept them as perfectly well founded for all the purposes of legislation, and he had no doubt they were; but on the other hand, every one who read the Reports must see that they were altogether imperfect as regarded any blame to be attached to the officials, because no details and no names were supplied. Sir J. M'Neil, however, had applied to the Commissioners for the names in the different cases, in order that they might be investigated, He (the Lord Advocate) had also directed the attention of the Sheriffs to the observations made in the Report, and from those gentlemen he had received a great variety of replies. Many of them were very short, because they simply stated that there were no lunatic asylums, no private licensed houses, and no provision whatever for the reception of lunatics in their respective counties. In respect to other counties various explanations were made as to the matters contained in the Report. Sir Archibald Alison stated in his reply that he had ordered two inspections every year in Glasgow, but that he had been obliged to discontinue one of them because the Commissioners of Supply would not pay the cost of both inspections. It must not be supposed that he had said one word to disparage that most valuable document, the Report of the Commissioners, for he believed it to be fuller, more detailed, and to afford more information with regard to the state of lunatics in Scotland than had been produced with relation to any other part of the kingdom. Now, one word as to the state of matters when the Commission was appointed. It was well known that Lord Rutherfurd's Bill had been withdrawn in consequence of the strong opposition which it had met with in Scotland, and, whatever the ground on which it was based, he must say that he never recollected a more determined or general opposition to any measure. When, in 1853, he (the Lord Advocate) was appointed to the office, which he now had the honour to hold, he was not hopeful of being able to accomplish that which Lord Rutherford had so completely failed to do, but he resolved to wait and to seize the first opportunity of doing that which each day's experience told him was more than ever urgently required. In the meantime Miss Dix, whose name no one could mention in connexion with this subject without the most sincere admiration, went to Edinburgh, and wishing to visit the asylum at Musselburgh, requested him to interfere and obtain access for her, as she was desirous to visit them unaccompanied by the Sheriffs, and at a time when she was not expected. Her usual sagacity did not fail her in making that request. In consequence of that application, and not exactly seeing how he could authorize her visits under those circumstances, he addressed a letter upon the subject to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He received in answer a statement that it was proposed to appoint a Commission; and on the 1st of March, two days afterwards, he wrote stating that he should rejoice to see the Commission appointed for the reasons mentioned in his last; that it was very desirable that the smaller asylums should be suppressed, but that the way of effecting the suppression required consideration, and that inquiry was necessary respecting the outrages committed upon lunatics at large. He had referred to the two previous letters for the purpose of showing that he was now, on the Report of the Commission, to which he had looked for aid in legislating, only carrying out the plan sketched by his predecessor about ten years ago. He assumed that hon. Gentlemen were acquainted with the details of the Report which had been laid before the House, and he thought he need not advert to the former law, which was entirely and thoroughly imperfect. The safeguards were simply these:—The Sheriffs of the counties, the Justices, and some other parties had the power and duty of inspection once or twice a year; certain registers were, ordered to be kept and certain regulations made. But there was no uniformity; every Sheriff might interpret the Act as he pleased, and there was no obligation to erect asylums for the maintenance of lunatics. The duty was thrown on the Procurator Fiscal of seeing the Act executed, but no power was given him to ascertain whether it was executed or not, and there was no power of visitation. He need not say that those safeguards entirely failed, and the remedy he now proposed was that there should be appointed a Commissioner, an Inspector General, who should be a medical man, a secretary, and a clerk; and that these should constitute the Lunacy Board for Scotland, though not under that name. It was not proposed to make the Commissioner a member of the Lunacy Board for England to the full extent in which an English Lunacy Commissioner was a member; but it was proposed to make him a corresponding member with the power of sitting at the Board, of communicating with the Board, and of writing the part of the Scottish Board to the English Board for the purpose of making inquiries. It was also proposed generally to give the right of appeal, in case the combined counties differed from the Commissioner on certain points, to the Lunacy Commission in England. He had communicated to that Commission not all the details of the plan, but a general sketch of it, and he believed that that Commission concurred in it. These persons—the Commissioner, the Inspector General, the secretary, and clerk—being appointed, the Commissioner would have, in the first place, the power of granting and refusing licences for Lunatic Asylums, and the provisions would be as stringent as possible consistently with the public benefit. It was quite clear that the granting of these licences had hitherto depended on the view which the Sheriff for the time being might take of their duty. The Sheriff of Mid-Lothian had stated that it was not the case that licences had been granted as a matter of course, but it was obvious that the Inspector of Lunatics should, before licences were granted, have the power of inquiring into the nature of the building and the character of the person keeping it. The Commissioner would have the power of renewing and transferring those licences, and of revoking them, and also of making rules for the management of the asylums, and of inquiring into the conduct of the officers. These matters would be reported to, and subject to the control of the Home Secretary. The Commissioner would have a quasi-judicial power of inquiring into cases under the Act, of summoning witnesses, and generally superintending the district asylums. The Inspector General would be bound to visit the asylums at least twice a year, and to discharge other duties, the details of which would be set forth in the Bill, besides having the control of the medical department. The Sheriffs and the Justices would retain the powers conferred on them by the present Act of Parliament. The general expenses under the Act would be substantially provided for in this way:—The staff of Commissioner, Inspector General, secretary, and clerk, and the office expenses, would be defrayed by Parliament. The expenses of building and repairing lunatic asylums would be arranged in the following manner:—Scotland would be divided into eight districts, under the title of the Edinburgh, Inverness, Aberdeen (which would include Shetland), Perth, Dumfries. Glasgow (embracing the county of Lanark alone), Renfrew, and Stirling districts. In those eight districts the district lunatic asylums would be erected in the first instance by an assessment laid on for the purpose, and the district Boards would be formed by the prison Board within each county electing from itself the members of the District Lunacy Board. The Commissioner, however, would fix the number of the members of which each district Board should consist; the number of members to be elected by each county in that district being regulated by the amount of rate. The district Boards being thus formed, the Commissioner would inquire into the necessity of an asylum, and, if he thought an asylum required to be erected or repaired, he would communicate the matter to the district Board, which Board would have the power of assessing the district. Thus far, as to the erection of the building. With regard to their maintenance, it was believed that they would be self-supporting as far as the counties were concerned. The fees from private persons and the payments by parishes would, to a great extent, relieve the counties from the burden; and where funds were left for the maintenance of lunatics, there would be power to apply these to the purpose of each district asylum, so that to that extent the assessment would be diminished. Where there existed such institutions as those at Montrose and Aberdeen, a power would be given either for the Board to purchase them entirely, or to make an agreement with them for the reception and care of pauper lunatics. There were other provisions of a miscellaneous character. It was proposed that punishment should be enacted for the maltreatment of lunatics. The power possessed by the Board of Supervision to dispense with sending lunatics to asylums would be repealed, because the only necessity for that power arose from the circumstance that there was no proper accommodation in the asylums for them. He did not know that there was anything more he need trouble the House with. Much had been said of the abuses which had taken place in Scotland, but it should be remembered that it was not long ago since scenes such as were described in the Report of the Commissioners might have been witnessed in many parts of England. He trusted that he should be enabled to carry into effect a measure required by the necessities of the country to which it applied, and which would give to an unfortunate class of individuals that relief which was dictated by humanity.

said, a statement had been made on a former occasion, when he was not present, and repeated that night by the learned Lord, that the Bill of 1848, as introduced by Lord Advocate Rutherfurd, was withdrawn in consequence of the almost unanimous opposition which it had met with in that House. [The LORD ADVOCATE: In Scotland.] That statement, as far as the north of Scotland was concerned, was incorrect: on the contrary, that part of the kingdom was unanimously in favour of the measure. Long before Lord Advocate Rutherfurd introduced his Bill, in the year 1847, the gentlemen of the north of Scotland were so deeply impressed with the necessity for establishing a great public lunatic asylum, or asylums, that after repeated abortive applications to Government on the subject, they took the matter into their own hands, and collected a large subscription for the purpose—some of the great proprietors putting down their names for £500, and all of them contributing according to their means. Steps were then taken to secure a site for the building, whereupon Lord Advocate Rutherfurd gave notice of his Bill, and the immediate result was, very naturally, the withdrawal of the subscriptions, as the Bill had the same object in view as the subscribers. The northern proprietors looked anxiously for the passing of the Bill, and their surprize was great when they learned that it was withdrawn. He (Mr. Baillie) had received several remonstrances on the subject from his constituents at the time, and he had waited upon Lord Advocate Rutherford in relation to the subject; but he was assured that the Bill had only been withdrawn for a season, and that it would again be introduced. The north country gentlemen, therefore, were not liable to the charge of opposition to the Bill. But, even if they were—even if the whole of Scotland were opposed to it, that would be no justification of the Government for neglecting their duty, as the question involved was not local but general, casting, as the acts which were complained of did, discredit upon the whole empire. If the Government felt convinced that such a measure was necessary, it was their duty to force it through the House, whatever opposition they might have met with. The present Bill appeared to him to be, in most respects, the same as the Bill which had been introduced by Lord Advocate Rutherfurd. To that Bill he believed that some opposition had been made by Members from the southern counties of Scotland, because they had built asylums of their own; but he was sure that the general principle upon which the present Bill was founded would not meet with any opposition in Scotland.

said, he was glad to see that the Government had taken up the question, and he would not have trespassed upon the attention of the House had not the learned Lord Advocate referred to certain animadversions which he (Mr. E. Ellice) had made upon a previous occasion upon the Board of Supervision. The Lord Advocate had stated that the object of the Report of the Commissioners was not to accuse individuals. Now, in his opinion, if any lawyer had to draw an indictment against the Board of Supervision, he could not wish, a more forcible document than the Report of the Commissioners, The whole of that Report was, in fact, a narrative of the law set at defiance, and of facts suppressed by the authorities to which the execution of that law was entrusted. He (Mr. Ellice), therefore, adhered to the remarks he had made on a former night; he reasserted the accusations he then made, and he repeated that if the question was put to a jury, they would come to no other decision than that gross culpability existed on the part of the authorities, and he only regretted that the Government had not had the courage to say, in introducing the Bill, that the Board of Supervision had neglected their duty and had deserved the condemnation of the House. He asked any one to read the statements in the Reports of the Board of Supervision to which he had called the attention of the House, and he would admit that the real facts of the case relating to the treatment of pauper lunatics in Scotland had been suppressed by the Board of Supervision, and that those statements were perfectly irreconcilable with the facts which had been set forth in the Report of the Commissioners, With regard to the out-of-door paupers, what was the language of the Reports? They say—

"In all the cases in which we have dispensed with removal to an asylum we have provided against abuse, by taking care that there shall be medical attendance, and due attention to the wants and comforts of the patient."

That was their language in Report after Report. What greater assurance could the House or the country have, that these lunatics were properly taken care of. But how was this statement to be reconciled with the Report of the Commissioners, which showed that uniformly the pauper lunatics in Scotland had been treated in the most disgraceful manner? What became of the case of the lunatic who was chained by a short chain, two yards long, for thirty years, and fed like a dog? It was impossible, therefore, to say that the Board of Supervision had not suppressed the facts in their Reports. He might have overstated the power of the law in such cases when he addressed the House on a former occasion, but he would still say that the law was humane, and provided that these poor lunatics should be cared for by the parish. At all events, it gave the Board the most ample power of supervision and inspection with reference to lunatic paupers of all descriptions, and that it had not been carried out as it ought to have been was, he maintained, owing to the laxity by which the proceedings of the Board of Supervision had been characterized. With respect to the custody of lunatic paupers in poor-houses, he had that morning read a document to be found in the appendix of the Report, containing the evidence of Mr. Walker the Secretary to that Board, which he must say was one of a most extraordinary nature, inasmuch as any one would be led, if he attached implicit credit to it, to imagine that no grievance whatsoever existed in connexion with the management of those lunatics. The Secretary to the Board of Supervision stated, that the pauper lunatics were well cared for, and that he did not think the Board would sanction their transfer, even in a single instance, from one place to another, merely for the sake of saving a few pounds. He (Mr. Ellice), however, should like to know how that statement was to be reconciled with the fact of lunatic paupers having been removed, for the sake of saving a few pounds, from the Murray Asylum in Perth to a licensed house in East Lothian, where they had very soon died off? The secretary went on to add, that those lunatics who were admitted to the poor-houses were either harmless, imbecile persons, or persons in whose case there was no chance of a cure being effected, and that they were not received into the poor-houses without a warrant from the Sheriffs. But did that evidence tally with the account which had been given by the Commissioners? Why, he held in his hand a list, from which he found that in almost every one of the poor-houses lunatics were confined without any legal warrant whatsoever. Such was the case, for instance, in the poor-house at Dunfermline. Again, in the poor-house at Dumfries there were no less than eight insane persons who had been turned loose among the rest of the inmates without the authority of a warrant, or even of a medical certificate. At Dalkeith two male and ten female paupers, who were insane, were confined, and no separate accommodation had been provided for their use. The charity workhouse of St. Cuthbert contained eighteen male and thirty-nine female insane paupers, who had been admitted into the establishment without any legal warrant, and yet all those places were in the immediate vicinity of the authorities, St. Cuthberts being only half a mile from the room where the Board assembles, and ought, one would suppose, to be under their direct and particular control. Here was a house in which insane paupers were confined indiscriminately with the sane in defiance of the law, and yet the Board of Supervision asserted that their supervision was perfect, and that these paupers were all visited by medical officers. Mr. Walker was a gentleman of high character, yet his statements were controverted and shown to be directly opposed to the fact. In a poor-house only a few hundred yards from his own door, either the members of the Board were sitting still and did not know what was going on, or they wilfully concealed the facts. The Lord Advocate might pass as many laws as he pleased to remedy the present state of things, but he warned him they would be of no avail unless the Executive took care that they were put in execution by the authorities. He had before him a return of the outdoor paupers who were directly under the Board of Supervision, because it was by their means they were allowed the exemption of not residing in the poor-house. It was thought he had some monomania on the subject of the poor law in Scotland; but his conviction was, that the allegations he had brought under the notice of the House were true, and, that if the law were put in force in the spirit in which it was agreed to by the Legislature, it would be sufficient. But his conviction was, that the law was not so put in force, and that the poor were in a different state from what the Legislature contemplated. He had moved for a return of the number of inspections made locally into the condition of the poor in the parishes of Scotland, and he found that, in most of the cases where the greatest grievances existed, the Board of Supervision took credit for visiting those parishes. In one parish in Argyllshire, which was visited by an inspector of the Board of Supervision, no remark was made; but he found that in this parish there were three cases reported on by the Commissioners, in two of which, women of thirty-two and thirty-four years of age respectively, who had been mad from birth, had each had an illegitimate child; and, in the third, a woman of forty-four, who had been fourteen years mad, was reported to be not properly clothed, and not taken care of. If such things could take place without remark, in parishes which had been visited by the Board of Supervision, their inspection was worse than useless—it was mischievous, because it led the public to believe that the lunatic paupers were taken care of, when they were neglected, ill-clad, and ill-fed. In another parish, seven cases of lunacy were reported by the Commissioners, the parties being great objects and very ill attended to. Sir J. M'Neill had himself visited that parish, and if the head of the Board of Supervision overlooked such cases, what security could there be that the poor law was put into proper execution in Scotland? In a Report made two or three years ago, Sir J. M'Neill stated that the whole system of the poor law in Scotland was a recognition of the right to relief, that the poor had a right to take statutory proceedings when they were aggrieved, and that they had facilities for claiming relief which were not known in England or any other countries. This was accepting, on the part of the Board of Supervision, a responsibility which they now had to answer for. He could only say, that if the poor of Scotland had such a protection, they had been most cruelly defrauded of it. He was sorry the Lord Advocate had attempted to defend a state of things that was indefensible. At present the administration of the poor law in Scotland was a mockery and a delusion. As to the Bill introduced that evening by the Lord Advocate, he wished for the present to reserve his Opinion as to its provisions. He certainly was of opinion, that a Board in Edinburgh was most objectionable, seeing what they had got from having a local poor law Board there. His own opinion, and he believed it was shared in by the majority of Scotchmen was, that the Lunacy Board of England, which did its work most admirably, ought to have its power extended to Scotland in the same way as to Wales, with, of course, the assistance of additional machinery. At the same time he was not in the least for relieving the local Boards of their responsibility. There was one point to which the learned Lord Advocate had not alluded, and upon which he hoped he would yet insist—namely, that the whole of those horrid receptacles of filth and oppression, the licensed houses, should be closed against the reception of pauper lunatics. The present horrible system could not be effectually uprooted unless they suppressed those abominations, and placed the whole of their patients in establishments under the direct control of the Board. With regard to the provision requiring the removal of pauper lunatics from their friends, he doubted whether that was a humane regulation in all instances. In many cases of idiotey, for example, where the patient was perfectly harmless, he might very well be left to the custody of his friends—proper care being taken, of course, that he should not be neglected. If the Lord Advocate succeeded in passing this Bill—and certainly the public demanded the introduction of a measure on this subject—he ought to take care that its provisions were put into strict execution.

said, that he had heard with regret the speech of the learned Lord. Its tone resembled the remark of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, who, in allusion to former Motions, of his own on this subject, said "that something occurred, and so the thing went on." Unless the English Members took the trouble to make themselves masters of the details of this Report, and insisted on justice being done to the pauper lunatics of Scotland, there was great danger that the provisions of this Bill never would be enforced, and matters would continue pretty much as they now stood. He (Mr. Drummond) had previously stated that there were ten cases mentioned in the blue-book of direct breaches of the law, which it came within the Lord Advocate's province to punish or correct; but the learned Lord hinted that this was an exaggeration. He had since taken the pains to read over again, not only the Report, but also the Appendix, and he found no fewer than fifteen cases of direct and wilful breaches of the law. He called attention to the Appendix, because, although it was said that these charges were not proved, there was not a single allegation in the Report which the evidence in the Appendix did not support. He had further said, on a former occasion, that the Board of Supervision were chiefly responsible, and that assertion he now repeated. The law directed that the parochial Boards should lodge pauper lunatics in suitable asylums; and when the inspectors reported to the Board of Supervision, the latter body were empowered to act where the local authorities refused to do their duty. The blue-book showed that the sole aim—especially in the houses where the patients were principally paupers—had evidently been to accommodate the greatest possible number at the smallest possible expense. The saving of money to the rate-payers, not the benefit of the poor, was the object sought; and that, among other reasons, made him distrust a separate Board for Scotland. True economy was, no doubt, a very right thing; but what was called economy in Scotland was a prolific source of insanity. He charged the Board of Supervision with being the creators of insanity, and the evidence before the House abundantly established that charge. Pauperism and under-feeding acted powerfully in producing certain kinds of insanity, and many instances might be cited in which the dietary of the poor, especially in the Highland districts, was miserably deficient. The patients in the Lily-bank Asylum, in the Lothians, were under-fed and badly clothed. There were numerous passages to the same effect scattered through the Report. He would quote another:—

"It never should be forgotten that imperfect nutrition is one of the most frequent causes of insanity among the poor."

Now, the dietary of the poor was exclusively under the direction of the Board of Supervision, and as that Board did give insufficient food, they were manifestly more to blame in this matter than any other person in Scotland. But the learned Lord said "True, the treatment of these poor creatures has been atrocious—nothing could be more dreadful; but then, there are doubts as to the construction of the Act, find everybody has done what was right according to the best of his judgment." Whatever their other differences, they were all united on two things—namely, in refusing to obey the law, and in starving the poor. It was all very well to talk of the success of the Lunacy Board in England. He had been in frequent communication with the Lunacy Commissioners in England, and they had informed him that many cases of improper treatment of lunatics existed which they could not correct, because they had no means of obtaining the necessary evidence. That that was a growing evil was apparent from the many advertisements they saw in the newspapers, in which persons offered to receive old gentlemen and ladies of weak minds. Many of these private establishments were unknown to the Lunacy Commissioners, or to the public. A principle totally opposite to that which had hitherto been practised must be introduced, if they wished to see the state of the Scotch lunatics remedied. It was the poor, and not the money of the rate-payers, that ought to receive the first attention. If the Board of Supervision, for the last twenty years, had allowed so many cruelties to be perpetrated, he feared that the present Bill would not be found so efficient as they expected. He owned he had little or no faith in whatever machinery they adopted; for, had there been any wish in the magistrates of Scotland to see the law enforced, the existing law was quite able to protect the poor, and none of these things need have happened.

expressed his thanks to the learned Lord Advocate for his prompt endeavour to remedy a state of things disgraceful to Scotland, and to the empire. At the same time, he must warn him to avoid the mistake of Lord Rutherfurd, and not attempt to confiscate all the existing private institutions, and appropriate them to the service of the State. He referred to those asylums where insane persons of a higher class of society were provided for, and which he believed were conducted in a most unexceptionable manner. This, unfortunately, had been done by his predecessor, and he had thereby raised up an opposition which was fatal to the Bill of 1848. He hoped that, under the Bill, some receptacle would be provided for the criminal lunatics, so as to keep them detached from the others.

felt grateful to the Government for the measure, and could assure them that the Lunacy Commissioners of England would use every endeavour to promote its successful working.

, in reply to the observation, that he had not answered the cases of oppression mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's, said, that it was impossible to do so, because they were anonymous. The Commissioners had applied for the names for the purpose of investigation, but they were not given. If the inspectors and medical officers appointed by the Board of Supervision to report upon the state of these asylums had failed in the discharge of their duty and misled their employers, surely the whole of the blame of the present condition of Scotch lunatics ought not to be imputed to the Board. From year to year the Board had complained that the law was ineffectual, and it was therefore disgraceful to the Legislature, and not to the Board, that these lunatics were shamefully treated. Parliament was to blame for placing in the hands of the Lunacy Board a machinery which they were unable to work. They were required to see that the pauper lunatics were properly taken care of, and yet there was not accommodation for them provided. Bad as was the state of the lunatics in Scotland, it was a great deal worse when the Board of Supervision began its labours.

asked whether it was the intention of the hon. Gentleman to interfere with the management of those roads at present under the control of metropolitan trusts. [Mr. MASSEY: They will be excepted.] He would remind the hon. Gentleman that there were no less than 117 tollbars within six miles of the Post Office, and that £58,000 was thus collected in 10,000,000 separate sums. This was naturally felt to be a great grievance. The Legislature had been applied to to remedy a similar state of things in Dublin; and it was felt in London that the subject was one requiring the attention of the Government. He would press upon the hon. Gentleman the propriety of adding another service to those he was about to render, and to include the abolition of the tollbar nuisance in London in the Bill which he was now introducing.

concurred in thinking that almost any change made in the management of the highways must be for the better. There was no doubt that the present law required amendment, for the highway rate was now made subject to all sorts of irregular charges. The hon. Gentleman, however, would, he hoped, avoid one great error which had induced the failure of other propositions; he ought to make the Board really an elective one and not swamp it by the addition of too many nominated and ex officio members. The area of petty sessions adopted would in many instances be far too wide a one, and he would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should extend his inquiries into the management of highways under the Board of Health, when he would probably find quite as great a necessity for making alterations there as in the parochial districts. With regard to the great majority of corporate towns, the management of the highways was neither in the hands of the parochial nor of the corporate officers, but was vested in local commissioners appointed under the authority of local Acts of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman would probably find here also that there was as much misconduct among these commissioners as among parochial officers, and it would be worth considering whether it would not be necessary to interfere with such local Acts, and to take the management away from these commissioners.

wished to thank the hon. Gentleman for having introduced the measure, and to express his sense of the defects of the present system, which he said was utterly powerless to secure the good management of the high roads. He hoped provision would be made for enforcing the construction of foothpaths by the side of the high roads, so that the poorer as well as the richer classes might be accommodated, and that it might be possible to remove the tollbars in London still further from the town.