ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN SCOTLAND. (Hansard, 5 April 1830)

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

, in rising to present a Petition from a Stone-mason of Paisley, of the name of Kintry, complaining of the Administration of Justice in Scotland, expressed his regret that the Lord Advocate, or the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department was not present, as the petition contained some representations of very great importance, and well worthy of the attention of the officers of the Crown. The petitioner complained of the great expense he had been put to by being obliged to sue a man for debt in a Sheriffs' Court, which was for such a sum that he could not go into an inferior court. The petitioner complained of the extraordinary length of the written pleadings, and of the great delay which had been caused. It was above a year since the cause was begun, and it was not yet terminated. The proceedings to recover a debt of 41l. 12s. extended to eighty-seven folio pages. He bad been obliged to employ a 1269 procurator, because he lived at a distance. All these expenses took place under the improved system of pleading which had been introduced. If he recovered his debt, he would even then be a considerable sum out of pocket. The hon. Member recommended adding a jury to the Sheriffs' Court, expressing an opinion, that when the summing-up of the sheriff was in accordance with the verdict of the Jury, the decision might be final. Such an institution would be of great importance to Scotland, where 22,000 causes were tried yearly in the Sheriffs' Court. He hoped the Lord Advocate would attend to the prayer of the petition. Being on his legs, the hon. Member said, he hoped he might be allowed to say a word or two that concerned himself personally. It related to a misapprehension which had gone abroad as to what he had said on the first night of the Debates as to the Distress of the Country. He had been represented as stating, that in Scotland there was no distress! Now he had never said anything of the kind, but directly the contrary. He stated that deep and great distress prevailed in Scotland. His constituents believed that he had stated the reverse, and one of them had written to him to request he would inform himself on the subject. Had he stated that there was no distress, he should have stated what was inconsistent with his own knowledge and his own feelings. He had certainly said, on a former occasion, that the labourers of Scotland were not so distressed as those of England, he had at the same time said, that the farmers and owners of landed property were in very great distress. He was sorry to say, that since that time, the labourers, he believed, had also begun to suffer, and at present there was some danger that they would be thrown out of employment. The hon. Member concluded by apologising to the House for having troubled them with a matter which was of a personal nature.