§ The Lord Advocate
moved the further consideration of the Report on the Court of Session (Scotland) Bill.
§ Sir W. Rae
objected to the appointment of an additional Clerk of Session, and to the selection of Mr. Napier, a gentleman whose time was occupied with the duties of a professorship, and with the editing of a review. Such a course was certainly little in accordance with the professions of a Government who boasted so loudly of the reductions which they had effected in the expenditure of the country, and the number of unnecessary offices which they had abolished.
Sir G. Clerk
also complained of the uncalled for increase in the number of the clerks of the Court of Session, which was most inconsistent with the expressed determination of the Government to carry economy into every branch of the public service. The duties of the office might have been perfectly well discharged by one of the four clerks of session, and much unnecessary expense would have been saved.
§ Lord J. Russell
said, that according to the information which he had received, it appeared that the clerks of the Jury Court had already sufficient occupation, and it was not desirable to diminish the number.
§ Sir J. Graham
said, the question was, whether the duties of the office could not be discharged by gentlemen holding appointments in the law courts, who had no additional onerous functions to perform. The Jury Court had been abolished, and attached to it there were four clerks: 1,0001. a-year might have been saved to the public if the noble Lord had chosen 360 one of those persons, who were quite competent to fill the situation, who were men of great experience and unimpeachable integrity. The noble Lord's explanation, he must say, was not satisfactory. After what had taken place, he would take upon himself to pronounce that in his humble judgment the matter could only be regarded as a Scotch job.
§ Bill to be printed.