HL Deb 05 June 1832 vol 13 cc403-4

On the Motion that this Bill be committed,

The Duke of Buccleugh

proposed, that the Committee on the Bill should be postponed till next week, as he had not had sufficient time to consider the Report of the Commons' Committee on this subject.

The Earl of Roseberry

thought it would be sufficient to postpone the Committee till Friday next, in order to insure its passing this Session.

The Earl of Camperdown

concurred in this opinion, and observed, that a similar bill had already passed this House, and had been lost in the Commons by the prorogation.

The Duke of Hamilton

deprecated any haste in proceeding with the Committee. Making rash innovations in the Scotch law, merely to assimilate it to the English law, was, he thought, very unadvisable, as the foundations were entirely different.

The Lord Chancellor

thought his noble friend had not sufficiently attended to the Bill, or he would not have alluded to its altering the Scotch law. Neither this, nor the bill for reducing the number of the Court of Session to thirteen, had any such effect. As to the Bill, it only went to put an end to sinecure judicial appointments. The average number of defended causes in the Exchequer had been, of late years, only two in each year; and it was therefore proposed that a Judge of the Court of Session should do the duty at a small increase of salary, while a judicial appointment of 4,000l. a-year, and another of 2,000l. a-year, would be put an end to.

Bill to be committed on Friday.