HC Deb 02 February 1838 vol 40 cc717-20

On the motion of the Lord Advocate, the House resolved itself into Committee on the Sheriffs' Court (Scotland) Bill.

The first clause having been put,

Mr. Wallace

said, that he approved of the Bill generally; and thought that the country was deeply indebted to the learned Lord who had brought it forward; but there were some of its provisions to which he could not consent. In the first place, by an act, which he held in his hand, it was provided that sheriffs-depute should reside in their counties for the period of at least four months in each year; but by the present Bill it was provided that that act should be repealed, and that the sheriffs, instead of residing for four months, should hold eight courts within their respective counties in every year. It was also provided in the present Bill that the sheriffs should personally attend to their duties, but those duties were not defined, and it was left to the sheriffs to say what their duties were. He considered eight courts a-year too few, and he thought the duties of the sheriffs-depute ought to be defined, and the whole duty not left, as heretofore, to the sheriffs-substitute. He further objected that the sheriffs-depute never sat to hear appeals within their own counties, but in Edinburgh, and he thought such a system ought to be amended.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

said, that by the present law of Scotland, the sheriffs-depute were compelled to reside four months in every year within their respective counties, and the Lord-Advocate proposed to repeal the clause of the act containing that important provision. He (Mr. C. Fergusson) could not agree in the propriety of repealing the existing law, and he trusted that the learned Lord would reconsider the Bill with a view of leaving out the first clause altogether. It had been said that the sheriffs-depute ought to be persons frequenting the courts of law, but he could see no necessity for such an arrangement. The first clause of the Bill was the one he objected to, as he wished to see the sheriffs-depute residing more in their respective counties, and the whole business not left to the substitutes. The Bill, as a whole, would be of the greatest advantage to Scotland.

The Lord-Advocate

said, that there were sheriffs-substitute constantly resident in each county of Scotland, so that the business of the counties was promptly attended to. The sheriffs-depute and sheriffs-substitute had power to decide in civil and criminal cases, with certain reservations, and it was his object, by the present Bill, to extend their power. It had been said that the sheriffs-depute ought to reside for a longer period in their respective counties, but he could inform the House that, with one exception, those sheriffs who resided constantly in their counties were not those who gave the greatest satisfaction. The present Bill enforced the holding of at least eight courts in each year, and it was further proposed that each sheriff should report to the Secretary of State the number of courts held, so that there would be a sufficient check on the conduct of the sheriffs. The general opinion of the lawyers of Scotland was, that the sheriffs ought not to reside constantly in their counties, as by such a residence they lost their habits of business, and acquaintance with the laws.

The Attorney-General

had no hesitation in saying, that the time the sheriffs resided within their respective counties was of little importance, provided they were compelled efficiently to perform their duties. There was no necessity for constant residence, and it was highly important that the sheriffs should be familiar with the practice and decisions of the higher courts in Edinburgh. He thought the first clause as well as the others would introduce great improvement in the law of Scotland.

Sir G. Sinclair

expressed his concurrence in the clause as it stood in the Bill.

Mr. Gillon

thought it quite useless to retain two officers when one was sufficient for the discharge of the duties. In his county the opinion of the sheriff-substitute was held to be as good as that of the sheriff himself, and therefore the retention of a second officer was wholly unnecessary. He had no objection to the clause under consideration. With respect to residence, he could state that the sheriff of Lanark, one of the most important counties in Scotland, was resident within the county, and he (Mr. Gillon) did not see how the arguments of the Lord-Advocate and the Attorney-General in reference to the necessity of attendance in the Parliament-house could hold good.

Mr. Hume

looked upon this clause as intended to keep up a system of sinecures, and he maintained that the charge brought forward by his hon. Friend, the Member for Greenock, and which he (Mr. Hume) had himself made fourteen years ago, remained wholly unanswered.

The Lord Advocate

said, that he had no difficulty in answering the case put with regard to the exception of the sheriff of the county of Lanark. The principal city of that county (Glasgow) was second only to the metropolis of Scotland, and from its commercial character necessarily law proceedings arose, and the consequence was, that the sheriff was in constant employment, and his judgment and his law were kept up by the number of causes brought before him. That was not the case with other counties in Scotland, and therefore the same exception could not be applied. He (the Lord Advocate) wholly denied that the office of sheriff was a sinecure. On the contrary, after thirty years' experience, he could state that the duties of the office were extremely severe, and a litigant, for a trifling fee could obtain the judgment of the sheriff at any time.

Mr. Hume

reiterated his former statement, that the offices of sheriff were sinecures; for a cause was tried at Perth, and the sheriff resident in Edinburgh. The office of sheriff-depute should be abolished, and that it should be compulsory upon the sheriff to reside in his county, or that the sheriff's office should be lopped off, and the sheriff-depute retained, with the salary of both, or more, if necessary.

Mr. Pringle

concurred with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. The office of sheriff in Scotland was no sinecure, the salaries were extremely moderate, and such as would not secure the services of an efficient officer to be resident in any county. It was most desirable that those officers should have the opportunity of an attendance in the superior courts, and in that view he was supported by the judges in Scotland and other eminent law authorities.

Mr. Wallace

had been informed that the sheriffs were, of all other legal men, the least seen in the Parliament-House. He was so told; but of this he was certain, that if the salaries were 800l. instead of as now 400l., every sheriff would do his own duty, and reside in his county. At present the whole system was most vicious.

Clause agreed to.

Upon Clause 15 being proposed,

Mr. Pringle moved, that it be expunged.

The Committee divided on the original question:—Ayes 56; Noes 24: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.
Attwood, T. Horsman, E.
Bernal, R. Howard, P. H.
Bodkin, J. J. Hume, J.
Bowes, J. Humphery, J.
Brotherton, J. Jervis, S.
Brownrigg, S. Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Buller, C. Lambton, H.
Butler, hon. Colonel Lister, E. C.
Chalmers, P. Mackinnon, W. A.
Clay, W. Macleod, R.
Craig, W. G. Molesworth, Sir W.
Dennistoun, J. Morpeth, Viscount
Douglas, Sir C. E. O'Brien, W. S.
Duke, Sir J. O'Conor, Don.
Duncan, Viscount Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.
Erle, W. Parrott, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Poulter, J. S.
Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C. Rice, right hon. T. S.
French, F. Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Gibson, J. Salwey, Colonel
Gordon, R. Stanley, E. J.
Hall, B. Style, Sir C.
Hastie, A. Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.
Heathcoat, J. Thornley, T.
Tracy, H. H. Woulfe, Serjeant
Vigors, N. A. Young, G. F.
Wakley, T.
Wallace, R. TELLERS.
White, A. The Lord Advocate
Willshere, W. O'Ferrall, R. M.
List of the NOES.
Alsager, Captain Inglis, Sir R. H.
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Lockhart, A. M.
Attwood, M. Mackenzie, T.
Bateman, J. Plumptre, J. P.
Blair, J. Pringle, A.
Blennerhassett, A. Richards, R.
Broadley, H. Shaw, right hon. F.
Chisholm, A. W. Thompson, Alderman
Darby, G. Vere, Sir C. B.
Eaton, R. J. Young, J.
Gordon, hon. Captain
Grimsditch, T. TELLERS.
Houstoun, G. Forbes, W.
Hughes, W. B. Mackenzie, W. F.

On an amendment to Clause 17 being proposed, to the effect that it shall be lawful for her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, from time to time, to name Commissioners to whom remits may be made, to take such proofs in such counties, when required by the sheriffs.

Mr. Forbes

objected that the power was more appropriately vested in the sheriffs, who were more competent to exercise it from the possession of local knowledge.

The Committee divided on the question, that the words be inserted:—Ayes 51; Noes 20: Majority 31.

List of the AYES.
Adam, Sir C. Humphery, J.
Bernal, R. Jervis, S.
Briscoe, J. I. Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Brotherton, J. Lambton, H.
Brownrigg, S. Lister, E. C.
Butler, hon. Colonel Mackinnon, W. A.
Callaghan, D. Macleod, R.
Chalmers, P. Morpeth, Viscount
Craig, W. G. O'Brien, W. S.
Dennistoun, J. O'Conor, Don
Douglas, Sir C. E. Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.
Duke, Sir J. Poulter, J. H.
Duncan, Viscount Redington, T. N.
Erle, W. Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Salwey, Colonel
Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C. Stanley, E. J.
French, F. Style, Sir C.
Gibson, J. Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.
Gordon, R. Thornley, T.
Hall, B. Vigors, N. A.
Heathcote, J. Wakley, T.
Horsman, E. Wallace, R.
Howard, P. H. White, A.
Hume, J. Wilshere, W.
Wood, Sir M. TELLERS.
Woulfe, Serjeant The Lord Advocate
Yates, J. A. O'Ferrall, M.
List of the NOES.
Alsager, Captain Houstoun, G.
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Hughes, W. B.
Attwood, M. Mackenzie, T.
Bateman, J. Mackenzie, W. F.
Blair, J. Pringle, A.
Blennerhassett, A. Richards, R.
Broadley, H. Vere, Sir C. B.
Chisholm, A. W. Young, J.
Darby, G.
Eaton, R. J. TELLERS.
Gordon, hon. Captain Forbes, W.
Grimsditch, T. Lockhart, A. M.

The remaining clauses of the Bill agreed to, and the House resumed.

Bill reported.

Forward to