don't be in a hurry," and induced him to withdraw it and shape it as a notice; but when money was to be granted from the people, there never was any delay. He had never heard of these Scotch clerks. He did not even know that there was a Scotch Court of Admiralty. He would move as an amendment, that the chairman report progress. This should be done in common decency. That was his opinion; and he thought it but fair that time should be given to consider the demands of the Crown, as well as those made on the part of the people. Mr. Robinson said, he could see no analogy in the cases put by the hon. member. The proceeding now before the House arose out of a report of that House; and the hon. member knew, or ought to have known, of the proceeding. Therefore, whatever opinion the hon. member might entertain on the score of common decency, there was certainly no ground for attributing improper haste to others. After some further conversation, the committee divided: For the amendment 22. Against it 59. The resolution was then agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, February 16. SCOTCH JURIES BILL.] Mr. Kennedy brought in his bill," To alter the mode of choosing Juries to serve on Criminal Trials in Scotland." On the motion, that it be read a first time, The Lord Advocate said, that he did not rise to object to the first reading of this bill, for he should at all times be ready to give his utmost attention to any subject connected with the administration of justice in the Scottish courts. The hon. member had not communicated with him before he submitted his bill to parliament; if he had; he should have told the hon, member of his intention to bring in a bill, founded upon the report of the commissioners who had inquired into the state of the courts of Scotland, and of his readiness to consider how far the hon. member's object could be embodied in that bill. He was one of those who thought that a great practical evil must be shown before any innovation should be permitted in an existing system, and more especially on a subject involving so many important considerations. Unfortunately, however, there seemed to be a general disposition in the present day to hunt out every hole and corner in our constitutional system to which some the oretical remedy might by possibility apply. He was sure the English and Irish representatives would not think the worse of him for defending the institutions of his native country; and he would therefore say, without hesitation, that the criminal judicature of Scotland, both with reference to its principles, and to the bene ficial results of those principles, was highly estimable; and that there were in Scotland fewer trials, fewer capital pun ishments, and fewer sentences of transportation, in comparison with the popu lation, than in any other part of the united kingdom. He was far from wishing to institute an invidious comparison be tween the practice of the courts in his own country and that of the English courts; but he hoped he might be excused for stating some of the advantages which, in criminal trials, à prisoner enjoyed in Scotland, In the first place, he was entitled to a copy of the indictment fifteen free days before his trial; and it must be drawn up with the utmost care, specifying the charge precisely, both as to time, place, and substance, and the prosecutor was strictly prohibited from going beyond that specification. The accused was also entitled to a list of the names and designations of all the witnesses who were to appear on the trial against him, as well as the names of all the juries by whom he was to be tried. When the trial came on, no witnesses could be re-examined; and, what was perhaps the greatest advantage of all, counsel was, from first to last, allowed to the defendant. These, he submitted, were no common advantages to the ac cused; and he contended that it was hardly possible to devise a system better calculated to secure an impartial trial. The only innovation of which he was agree in the view which the learned lord had taken of the criminal courts in Scotland. He adverted to the sentence pass thority of the ablest lawyer of the day, he professed himself prepared to contend with the learned lord, that the court, in passing that sentence, had exceeded its powers. aware, was, the introduction of the English law of treason, which had been made applicable to Scotland at the time of the union; and he admitted that the proceeded on Mr. Muir in 1794, and, on the auings under that law were not so favourable to the accused as those under the law of Scotland. Of this it had very lately been his misfortune to witness a melancholy example. In the course of the last summer, no fewer than 98 persons had been indicted for treason, and the same indictment had been served on 50 of them, although the offences charged against them had been committed in different counties, and under different circumstances. In that point the law of Scotland had certainly been altered, and he contended that it had been altered to the prejudice of the constitution. He should not object to the principle of the bill, but he desired to be understood as reserving to himself the right of opposing it in any future stage, if he should deem it necessary. Mr. Kennedy was not surprised that the learned lord should have felt a wish to make these observations on the present occasion; but, at the same time, he conceived that he himself was fully warranted in not having postponed his motion on account of the learned lord's absence the other evening. The learned lord had complained that many of his countrymen took pleasure in stating the defects of the establishments in Scotland. For himself, he was actuated by a very different motive: the love he cherished for the establishments of his country had prompted the desire of remedying their defects. The learned lord had said, that it was not enough to show the existence of theoretical defects, and that some practical defect should have been pointed out to warrant the introduction of such a measure as the present; but he (Mr. K.) was of opinion, that if he exhibited any thing faulty in theory, which might lead to injurious imputations on the conduct of the learned judges who presided over the criminal court of Scotland, he did better than if he were to take any indelicate notice of the practice into which these learned persons were led by such a defective theory. He meant to propose that the bill should be printed and read a second time a week hence, with an understanding, that it should stand over till April, subject to any future postpone ment that might be necessary. Mr. M. A. Taylor was not disposed to The Lord Advocate expressed his readiness to meet the hon. gentleman, and to maintain that that judgment was legal. He was the more confident on the subject, because that judgment had recently come under the consideration of the supreme court, and had received its sanction. Mr. J. P. Grant could not sit silent and hear it said that the supreme court had recently approved of that sentence; because he knew that the ablest judge on that bench held opinions hostile to that sentence. There was scarcely a lawyer of eminence in Scotland who did not entertain grave doubts on the subject. The bill was read a first time and ordered to be read a second time on Thursday. IRISH UNION DUTIES.]-Mr. Curwen presented a petition from Keswick in Westmoreland, praying the House to consider the propriety of repealing the act of last session, for continuing the Irish Union Duties. The hon, member contended that the abolition of these protecting duties, as they were called, would be equally advantageous to the English and to the Irish manufacturer. Sir H. Parnell supported the petition, which he conceived to involve a question of great importance. Numerous petitions were in progress, to the same effect, and he sincerely wished for some investigation into the subject. A greater mistake had never been committed than by the Irish parliament when they conceived that by these duties manufactures could be established in Ireland. Their effect was neither more nor less than to shut the Irish manufacturer out of the English market; and this was proved by the fact, that Ireland had at the present moment no manufactures except where the market was free. Mr. Hutchinson opposed the prayer of the petition, the object of which, if he understood it aright, was, to make the chancellor of the exchequer revise the act of last session, by which the protecting duties had been continued for a spe cified time. He deprecated that object as injurious to the interests of Ireland; and said, he could state, from his own knowledge, that if accomplished, it would throw a great number of persons out of bread. Mr. Littleton supported the petition, on the general principle, that there should be no tax on the interchange of the commodities of the two countries. He admitted that those concerned in manufactures which existed before the union had a right to expect that these duties, if not continued, should at least be gradually removed: but there was not the same reason for continuing duties on manufactures which did not exist at all in Ireland, such as pottery and hardware, which were almost exclusively the manufactures of Staffordshire. Lord Althorp was in favour of the prayer of the petition, because he conceived that no manufactory in Ireland would be injured by the removal of these protecting duties. Sir J. Newport was convinced that these duties operated as a heavy tax, and threw a great impediment in the way of British manufacture. With respect to pottery, that manufacture never did exist in Ireland, and never could, because coal could not be had but at a heavy price. His opinion was, that all articles which were duty free should be put on the same footing: Though no duties existed, yet the port charges were the same with respect to the manufactures of Ireland as they were with regard to foreign countries. This operated as an injury to both countries. He hoped the chancellor of the exchequer would take the matter under his consideration. These discouragements tended greatly to the injury of the tillage of Ireland, and broke through a principle which was held in that House; namely, that of binding the two countries together by mutual interest, and doing away all cause of irritation and unpleasant feeling. It was with this view that in 1806 he had brought in the Grain intercourse, bill and experience had proved that that was a beneficial measure. Mr. Peel earnestly hoped, that the chancellor of the exchequer would give his earliest consideration to this important subject. He was most anxious to see this kind of commercial distinction speedily abolished. These duties, instead of being a protection for a certain portion of the Irish trade, were merely a tax VOL. IV. upon her commercial industry, and an evil which it never could have been the intention of the Union to have inflicted upon her. They went to compel the people of Ireland to deal with England at a much higher rate than they would do if no such protecting duties existed. There could be but a few individuals engaged in some particular trades who felt at all interested in the continuance of restrictions upon fair and equal intercourse, which were invidious and severe. He was satisfied that it would be for the interests both of Great Britain and Ireland that these heavy restrictions should be removed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it had been made a matter of complaint by hon. gentlemen, that the measure for continuing those protecting duties had been brought in at the close of the last session, and passed with so much rapidity as not to allow of the necessary attention being paid to the subject.. So far from that being the case, it was well known that as far back as the session previous to that, petitions had been presented in great numbers, praying for the renewal of the duties, and a deputation had been sent from Ireland, with the express intention of endeavouring to procure that object. It had been continually represented to him, that there would be great inconvenience in allowing the Irish manufacturer to be taken by surprise. Under these circumstances, he had introduced a measure which would provide for a gradual extinction of the duties. Whether the period fixed was too long or too short, or whether all the details of the measure he had recommended were best adapted to the case or not, he could not determine. But he certainly doubted whether the sudden withdrawing of the protection duties would not be productive of greater evils than those now complained of. It was certainly his desire to conciliate the different interests, and to decide upon this question in the way that would best contribute to the prosperity of each. Mr. M. Fitzgerald said, that the temper in which this subject was discussed was with him a subject of congratulation. These duties had been enacted at the Union for twenty years, with a view that at the end of that time they might be revised and possibly extinguished. He did not complain that the chancellor of the exchequer had acted unfairly in continuing them, but that he had acted with 3 A out inquiry, and without laying any grounds for his measure. The great part of these duties were an injury to the English manufacturer who sold, and to the Irish consumer who bought them, without affording the least possible protection to the Irish manufacturer; for there were many duties on articles, no manufacture of which existed in Ireland. Some of these duties too were on articles of prime necessity. A general inquiry into the regulations respecting the intercourse between the two countries would be highly expedient. He had himself discovered that there was a regulation respecting the coasting trade in Ireland, by which duties were levied by port charges amounting to 20 per cent on the freight. Ordered to lie on the table. BRITISH MUSEUM.] Mr. Lennard rose to make his promised motion upon this subject. In this establishment, he said, supported as it was at the public expence, the utmost possible facility should be afforded to the access of the public, but especially to those individuals who were devoted to literary and scientific pursuits. He was aware that of late years, a great freedom of ingress was allowed to those who visited the Museum merely for the gratification of curiosity, no less than 50,000 having been admitted within the last year; but what he had to complain of was the difficulty of admission on the part of those who for literary and scientific purposes were desirous to examine the library, to have access to the reading-room, or to see the several collections of minerals, prints, drawings, and coins. In France and the other continental nations, the utmost freedom of access was allowed to strangers who desired to see similar collections, and he could not think it honourable to the character of this country, that a different practice prevailed here. If it were said, that from the value of these collections at the Museum to which he referred, it would be imprudent to expose them to the access of strangers, he should say in answer, that an additional number of officers ought to be appointed to take care of them. This certainly would be a much less exceptionable arrangement than the existing restriction upon the admission of strangers. But the appointment of additional officers would be unnecessary, if it should appear that the Museum had already several officers receiving salaries without any corresponding duty to per form. With a view to ascertain that, he proposed to move for a return of the salaries and extra-service money paid to the several officers of the Museum. At present the admissions to which he referred could not be obtained by any one who did not procure the certificate of the trustees, or who was not known to one of the officers of the Museum; and considering the large sums which had been paid from the public purse for the establishment and maintenance of this institution, he must say, that those grants were very improvidently made, should it turn out, that instead of being found available for a public purpose, it was merely an establishment for the gratification of private favour or individual patronage. The hon. member concluded with moving for an account, 1. Of the number of applications made to the trustees of the British Museum, for the purpose of being admitted to inspect that part of the collection of minerals not generally shown; and the collection of medals and coins; and the collection of prints and drawings; and of the number of similar applications for the purpose of being admitted to the reading-room; such accounts to extend to the last five years past, and to contain the number of admissions in consequence of such applications; and the number of applications and admissions in each of the five years to be stated: 2. Of the amount of the annual salaries, and of the monies paid to each of the present under and assistant librarians, officers, and attendants employed in the care and arrangement of the manuscripts, printed books, minerals, medals, coins, prints and drawings, for extra-service money, or any other sums or gratuities paid to them beyond their stated salaries, and stating the nature and extent of the service and attendance of each officer; and also, the nature and extent of the services for which extra-service money may have been paid; such account to extend to all services and payments within the last ten years. Sir C. Long said, that his object in rising was not to oppose the motion, but to assure the House that it was not less the wish than the duty of the trustees of the Museum to give every facility to the public. There were two classes of persons who required admission: the first consisted of those who came for the purposes of general inspection, and to to that class very great facilities had been afforded within the last few years; and the number of such visitants was not less than 50,000 in the year. The other class who required admission was the much more important one; it consisted of literary men and artists who came for the inspection of the drawings, medals, &c. It must be obvious that it would be dangerous to admit strangers indiscriminately to such places; and that therefore some restrictions on admission were necessary. He happened to know, that, by the general admission to the valuable library in France, very considerable losses had been sustained. The question then was, whether the restraint adopted at the Museum was too great? It was said by the hon. member, that no person was admitted to certain parts but by the recommendation of one of the trustees; but it should be recollected that there were 43 trustees, and several of the principal officers of the place, to any of whom an application might be made. The officers were all disposed to afford every facility in their power, and if any complaint of neglect on this head were to be made, it would meet with immediate attention. Mr. Gurney said, he should not discharge his duty if he did not bear testimony to the general facility given to the public by the trustees and the attending officers of the British Museum. By application to the proper officers, admission might be had to the coins, manuscripts, &c. on other days besides those on which the public were admitted. The officers employed were men of high literary attain. ments, and none could be found more fitted for the employments which they enjoyed. The French government expended more money in the care of their library than was given by us for the support of the British Museum altogether; and he was surprised how well the duty was discharged at so small an expense. Mr. Bright concurred in what had been said respecting the facilities given to the public. Mr. Colborne agreed in the encomiums passed upon the trustees and officers, and suggested the propriety of erecting an edifice, which should be at once a commemoration of our victories, and a depôt for the contents of the Museum. Mr. Bankes spoke of the decayed state of part of the Museum, and expressed his wish that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the condition of the Muto seum, in order to its improvement. The motion was agreed to. MOTION FOR THE ORDNANCE ESTIMATES IN DETAIL.] Mr. Hume rose to draw the attention of the House to the Ordnance Estimates for the present year, and to submit a motion on that subject; the reasons for which he should state in the first instance. That retrenchment was the object that he had in view, as well as the avowed object of the House itself, could hardly be doubted. It became necessary, therefore, to point out what alterations could, with the least inconvenience, be made; but in order to satisfy members with regard to particulars of this nature, it was also necessary that accurate and detailed accounts should be placed before them. The estimates, as at present framed, gave none of the requisite information: they entered into no details, but left the House utterly ignorant of all the items which went to compose the separate heads of expenditure. It was impossible for the House to judge what reductions were practicable or expedient, or to what extent they ought to be carried whilst the existing system of account between the public and the Ordnance department was allowed to prevail. The commissioners of military inquiry had in one of their reports advised that a different form of accounts should be adopted, and it was certainly singular that the House should have hitherto been content to vote the sums demanded, on an inspection merely of their total amount. The necessity for setting out these accounts in greater detail would appear manifest on a reference to the last ten or twelve years, during which, it would be found that, the sums actually disbursed did not correspond with the finance accounts. In the statement which he was about to make, he should not notice the article of old stores. He should confine himself entirely to the actual sum charged against the public. He would take, for instance, the three last years; the estimate for 1817 was 1,189,000, and the sum charged in the finance accounts for the year end ing January 5th, 1818, was 1,435,000l., the difference between the estimate and the actual expenditure being 246,000l. In 1818, the estimate was 1,200,000l., and the actual expenditure 1,400,000/ |