§ The house vent into the further consideration of the Scotch judicature bill. The bill being re- 974 committed, Mr. Horner objected to the clause enacting that no appeals should be permitted from the interlocutory judgments of the Court of Session, without the consent of the Court of Ordinancy. In this opinion he was supported by Mr. Abercromby and sir S. Romilly; and opposed by the Lord Advocate of Scotland, the Solicitor General for Scotland, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After a long conversation, sir S. Romilly proposed an amendment to the clause enacting that appeals should not be permitted, in the following words: "except where there is a difference of opinion among the judges." The Solicitor General opposed the amendment, but after some further conversation between sir S. Romilly, the Solicitor General, and the Lord Advocate of Scotland, it was agreed to.—Mr. Horner objected to that part of the clause which allowed an appeal where an interlocutory judgment might become final, and moved that that part of the clause should be expunged. After a few words from the Lord Advocate of Scotland and Mr. Abercromby, the words were expunged.—Mr. Horner next proposed, that the commissioners for inquiring into the regulations and the proceedings of the courts in Scotland, and reporting how far they might admit of the introduction of the trial by jury in civil causes in Scotland, should be appointed by parliament, and not by the crown, and that they should report to the houses of parliament. This amendment was opposed by the Lord Advocate of Scotland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Solicitor General for Scotland; and was supported by Mr. Whit-bread and Mr. Tierney, when a division took place in the committee: For the amendment 12; Against it 44. Majority 32.—The report was ordered to be received to-morrow.