Lord Stanleysaid, that he rose to pre-sent the petition of a gentleman with whom he had no manner of acquaintance, but who, it appeared, feeling himself aggrieved by a statement made in the 11th Report of the Scotch Law Commissioners, was anxious, for the purpose of clearing his character, to bring the matter before the House. It was the petition of Mr. Alexander Peterkin, who had been appointed, in the year 1814, Sheriff Substitute for the Orkneys, and was removed from that office by the Sheriff of Bute, in the year 1824. The petitioner stated, that subsequently to that period the Scotch Law Commissioners of Inquiry having, in the course of their inquiries, adverted to the power thus exercised by Sheriffs in Scotland, they had stated in their Report made to the House, that there had been two instances of the exercise of such power of recent date, but that it appearing that they had been perfectly warranted, the Commissioners did not feel called upon to interfere in the matter. The petitioner stated, that his dismissal was one of those instances, and that it would seem, from the wording of the passage referred to in the Report of the Commissioners, that it had been a dismissal warranted by the facts of the case. Now, so far was the petitioner from acquiescing in the decision of the Sheriff of Bute, that he had in 1824 commenced legal proceedings against him, which proceedings were now nearly being brought to a close. The petitioner felt it a hardship that this part of the Report of 516 the Commissioners should go forth to the public in such a shape as to cast an imputation on his character. He stated the petitioner had in private received from the Scotch Law Commissioners an assurance that was somewhat at variance with their Report. They admitted, that in his case no imputation attached to his character; that they had made no special inquiry into the facts of his case, though they had stated in their Report that on inquiry they found that his dismissal was warranted, and that they merely intended to convey, by that statement, that the Sheriff of Bute possessed the power which he had exercised. Now, no one disputed that; but the expression used certainly did seem to intimate that there was something in the case of the petitioner. The fact was not so, and the petitioner was therefore anxious to set Parliament and the public right upon the subject.
§ The Lord Advocatewas not aware that anything could be advanced against the character of this respectable gentleman. He did not believe that any charge had been made against him for his judicial conduct in the office he had filled. At the same time he was not cognizant of the facts of the case, and he could state nothing positively and of his own knowledge with regard to the facts of it. He believed, however, that he was correct in stating, that this gentleman had been removed from his office for nothing improper, and that no charge had been made against him.
Mr. Wallacewas glad that the subject had been brought before the House by the noble Lord. The lime was arrived when the power exercised by Judges in Scotland, of dismission of other Judges under them, should be done away with. The Judges of every grade in Scotland should be appointed and dismissed by the Crown alone. The practice of one set of Judges dismissing others had been attended with very injurious effects in that country. Inquiry-had induced him (Mr. Wallace) to come to conclusions very different from those of the Law Commissioners on the subject. It appeared, too, that this case had come into Court in the year 1824, and that it was now near its close in 1836. That fact spoke volumes as to the state of the law of the country. He trusted that the learned Lord-Advocate would endeavour to put an end to such a state of things, and that the House would assist him in reforming this disgraceful system of the Scotch Law Courts. There was a Judge who had been dismissed twelve years ago, who had not 517 been enabled, up to the present moment, to obtain a decision on his case.
§ Petition to lie on the table.