SUPREME COURT (SCOTLAND).

HC Deb 28 April 1842 vol 62 cc1211-26

Mr. Wallace

said, that in rising to introduce the subject of which he had given notice, he was desirous of impressing upon the House, and the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, that he did so with an earnest desire of improving the administration of justice in Scotland. He was well aware how unwilling the House was to hear so dry a subject as this, and he should, therefore, feel it his duty to proceed as quickly as he possibly could, and rather to refrain from expressing the opinions which he himself entertained, that he might bring before the House the opinions on the subject expressed by others. The bill he proposed to bring in was absolutely necessary, if the courts to which he alluded were to be improved at all; because it was quite evident, from the report of the Select Committee which he held in his hand, that the improvement of the Scotch Courts could not be effected without the interference of Parliament. He had found, in the course of the evidence taken before the committee, that no measure could be effectual without legislative interference. Another object he had in view, when he moved for the committee from which the report to which he had referred emanated, was to see whether or no at that moment the number of judges could not be reduced; and he must say, circumstances had since led him to believe, there would have been no occasion to fill up the vacancy which had since taken place. His best course would, perhaps be to read from the report those parts which bore most conclusively upon the points which he wished to present to the House. He believed that report was drawn up either by his learned Friend the late Lord Advocate for Scotland, or by the chairman of the committee; for though he moved for that committee, and obtained it too, he was not permitted to be the chairman. That great question was too important, as they called it, for any Member not connected with the Government to preside; consequently, the late Under Secretary was chosen chairman. In the course' of reading the evidence, he wished to say decidedly to the right hon. Baronet and the present Government, that he felt strongly the necessity to read that evidence. There were certain views entertained by the late Lord-Advocate, and the right hon. chairman, which pointed to a very small improvement,—viz., that the judges should be required to listen more patiently to the arguments of counsel. It had been very well observed in that House, that it was a hard case, that the judges of a court of such high respectability as the Court of Session, should be accused of not giving that due and fair attention to the arguments of counsel which they deserved. He had found, that really the judges were more or less liable to that censure, and that they had since found it necessary to pay more respect to the arguments of counsel than they had hitherto done. Though it had been alleged by the hon. Member for Stamford, that he (Mr. Wallace) had never done any good in bringing these questions before the House, he was sure that his hon. Friend, the late Lord-Advocate, who was a competent practical judge of such matters, would concur with him that a great deal of good had already resulted. Now, with regard to the report, he thought the best course he could pursue would be to read at once to the House the most important points which it contained. He should first say, however, that he looked upon the report as being considerably one-sided, inasmuch as the Gentlemen composing the committee were almost all Members of the legal profession; and he had not found them very anxious to improve those courts in which they themselves practiced. He did not mean, in making that statement, to impute any particular blame to those gentlemen; he believed, that no class were impartial where their own interests were concerned. It was so with the East-India monopoly, and all other monopolies. He had no hesitation in saying, that the Supreme Court of Scotland was now the worst constituted court in the world. The English Court of Chancery formerly deserved that designation; but since the reforms in that court, the Supreme Court of Scotland stood pre-eminently forward as the most expensive, the most dilatory, and, he might add, the least satisfactory, in which the law was promulgated in any country in the world. Those were strong expressions, but he used them advisedly. He believed, that he would hereafter be able to prove his assertions; if, as he hoped, he should at some future time be allowed the means of instituting an inquiry into the subject. He would read to the House a passage from the report to which he had alluded, which would confirm, to a certain extent, at least, the opinions he had expressed. The hon. Gentleman then read the following passage from the report of the select committee on Supreme Courts in Scotland, dated May 28, 1840:— It would appear, that complaints exist as to certain parts of the procedure before the Lords Ordinary in preparing the record. This matter was brought before your committee in so far only as it affected the time and labour bestowed by the judges; and while your committee see no reason to withdraw the preparation of the case from the superintendence of the judge, they have no doubt, that preserving that superintendence for all useful purposes, the system might in many respects be improved, so as not only to save a great deal of judicial time, but what is much more important for the suitor, prevent delay and expense in the progress of the cause. It does not belong to your committee to suggest any particular measures as proper to be adopted with this view, the improvement generally of the form of process not being before them. But they think it proper to remark, that many of the evils complained of, and for which a remedy is most required, have arisen from this, that the form of process introduced by the statute of 1825 was not equally well adapted to all forms of suit or subjects of litigation, on the one hand; and that the court, on the other, was so tied down by the express terms of the statute, as to prevent them from introducing, by acts of Sederunt, or rules of court, such modifications as would be not only advantageous, but necessary, in several important classes of cases. It will be seen be a return laid before Par liament, that the time daily occupied by either division of the Court does not extend, on an average, much beyond two hours a day, and of that time some part is always occupied in disposing of orders and motions of no great importance. Some of the witnesses have stated, that on the average, this part of the business occupies at least one-third of the time during which the Court sits, reducing to less than one hour and a half, if their statement be correct, the daily sittings of the Courts. These are circumstances which strongly mark the present existence of former complaint; but, without going through the evidence in detail, your Committee are compelled to state that, in their opinion, the system introduced in 1825 has not been fully carried out in the proceedings of the Inner House, and that dissatisfaction justly prevails as to the administration of this part of the judicial system. It is very much in consequence of this, and of the sittings of the Court in public not being extended under a system, intended to substitute, as far as possible, oral for written argument, that an opinion has arisen in many quarters, and apparently with reason, that the number of Judges in the Court of Session is too great for the business it has to discharge, and that by abridging the vacations of the Court, and prolonging the periods of its daily sittings, the whole business might be done by a reduced number of Judges. Dissatisfaction has been the consequence, and it may be that this has been among the causes which have recently occasioned the diminution of the business of the Court of Session. It appears, too, it has produced, indirectly, very considerable results, by influencing, in some degree, the form of making up the Records, and introducing a form different from that intended. An opinion has been expressed, that hearing of causes has become more full and satisfactory than formerly; but, on the other hand, the small amount of time given in public to the performance of judicial duty appears by Parliamentary returns, and the evidence, not to have been augmented. Your Committee are, therefore, not justified in concluding that the dissatisfaction which has so long prevailed has materially diminished. Various propositions were made by witnesses as to relieving the Courts from motions of course, and from difficulties connected with the attendance of the bar in different Courts. It is clear, that motions of form occupy small portions of time in the Inner House, though no doubt a considerable portion of the time during which either division actually sits at present. Much the more important suggestions relate to the extended sittings of the Court—to the necessity of their sitting during a much longer time— every day—to their sitting on Monday, and to their availing themselves, if necessary, of the power to prolong the Session. If it should appear, that a greater portion of time than can be given during the present terms is required for fuller discussion, and a proper dispatch of business, it ought to be obtained by curtailing the vacations, whether as regards the Outer or Inner Houses. The Court of Justiciary frequently sits on Monday; but they do not see that that circumstance necessarily interferes with arrangements by which that day might be gained for one or both divisions of the Court. A great deal might be accomplished by the divisions sitting on alternate days, or at all events by using the Wednesday occupied in the business of the Teind Court, which, though important, is not extensive. If it were necessary, it might be proper to enable the Court of Justiciary to sit at Edinburgh, with two Judges, or with a single Judge, as on Circuit. Without altering the days on which the Court met, a great deal of time might be saved, and usefully employed, by holding the meetings of the Judges upon those occasions, when the whole Court is called upon to advise regularly, exclusively upon Mondays, or the Wednesdays appropriated to the sittings of the Teind Court. These, however, are matters of detail, upon which your Committee thought it unnecessary to enter at length, being satisfied that even without Legislative interference, and under the existing powers of the Court, there can be little difficulty to adopt such arrangements as would give great additional time. Arrangements, however, may be necessary beyond the power of the Court, in which case recourse must be had to the intervention of Parliament. Now, it appeared that the Court sat only-two hours a day, and that for a limited number of days. He would put it to English and Irish Gentlemen how unsatisfactory must be the proceedings of such a court? He should observe, in addition, that witnesses were not examined before the court. In criminal matters alone, witnesses were heard; while in civil cases, every thing was done through long printed documents, the rules of Court having subverted the good ancient practice, against the law, of examining witnesses in chief and in cross in open court before the judge. Such was their Judge-made law, and he could conceive nothing so much opposed to the spirit of a free people. He should inform the House, that the labours of the Scottish Judges at Assizes were of the most trifling description. The proceedings at Assizes in Scotland were reduced to a mere farce. They had in that country most excellent local tribunals, which tried all but the gravest offences. Those tribunals were presided over by judges called sheriffs, who were men well acquainted with the law. The labours before the Judges of Assize were thus rendered so light, that the provincial papers were in the habit of de- scribing their going on circuit as mere trips of pleasure, during which they paid convenient visits to their friends in the different towns. He would next advert to the information he had received from three gentlemen of the highest knowledge and respectability, whose names he would not then mention, but which he would readily communicate to any hon. Gentleman in private. The first letter he would read, contained a description of the state of the Court at the present period. The hon. Gentleman read the letter, which was addressed to himself, as follows:— Edinburgh, March 30,1842. The Court was divided into two Chambers in 1808. At that time, the number of causes brought into Court in a year was about 2,500. (See Parliamentary Return, No. 241, 1824.) The number now (1841) brought into Court in a year, is only 1,500. (See Returns.) This shows a falling-off of two-fifths. But this does not show the whole decrease in real business, for in addition there is to be noticed the increase in decrees of absence, which occupy almost no time. In these cases, there is only one enrolment, and at the first calling, the whole matter is disposed of in a quarter of a minute. It is only the decrees in foro, that can give an idea of the real business. Now, the decrees in foro in 1808, when the two Chambers were instituted, were in number about 1,500. At present, they are only about 600. So, that while the total business has been steadily decreasing, the real business has been still more decreasing, by the increase in decrees in absence. It is, therefore, no exaggeration to say, that business has decreased one-half. If, therefore, two Chambers could do the business in 1808, one Chamber could do it now, when it is so reduced. It is well known, that the two Chambers, when they had cleared off the arrears which had accumulated, but not sooner, began to sit only for about two hours a-day for 113 days in the year; and even now, under the influence of the lash, applied by the late Parliamentary inquiry, they don't usually sit above three hours a-day. There is no good reason why the Court should not sit at least thirty days more, and two hours more each day, if necessary. But, it is believed, that the business would not require such long sittings, even with only one Chamber. This can be made plain by figures. The present prolonged sittings at three hours a-day, for 113 days, give 339 hours for each Court yearly —say, for both, 678 hours in the whole year. Before the late Parliamentary inquiry, the sittings were only two hours a-day, or 452 hours yearly. If the sittings were prolonged 30 days—that is, to 143 days in the year, and to five hours a-day, we should have 715 hours from one Chamber, being 37 hours more than the present prolonged sittings of the two Chambers. Can it be seriously maintained, that sitting for 143 days, at five hours a-day, would be too much labour? Let the sittings of the English Judges answer the question. There would still remain an ample portion of each day for reading papers, &c, besides more than half the year for vacations. If the excess of 37 hours by one Chamber sitting 143 days for five hours, be deducted from the assumed daily sittings of that time, it would not much exceed 4½ hours. This, with the constant decrease of business, as shown by the returns, for many years back, demonstrates that the time has now arrived, when one Court of Review may safely be abolished, and thereby, the delays and consequent expense arising from the present faulty system, and from the want of senior counsel both in the Inner and Outer Houses, be removed, or be greatly lessened, and the still more grievous and unseemly evil of conflicting decisions emanating from the two co-ordinate Courts of Review, be put an end to. To Robert, Wallace, Esq.,from— Esq. The next letter he would read to the House was as follows. — Edinburgh, March 30, 1842. SIR—There can be no doubt, that your Committee did much good, and that the Bar, and particularly the Whig clique, although slow to acknowledge this, cannot deny it. Their horror at reduction is rational enough, and we must not be too severe upon them. As you have obtained for them a great increase of courtesy from the Bench, and enlarged patience in hearings, they in return should have the courtesy to acknowledge your services frankly. But this improvement in patience, of course lengthens the hearings, and thereby aggravates one of the crying evils of our Courts, viz., the difficulty of getting eminent counsel to debate a case in the Outer House, without interruption, by being called away to the Inner House, or, indeed, to get the leading counsel at all, after the advisings begin in the Inner House. This great evil can only be remedied in two ways, either by restricting counsel to one division of the Court, or what would be far more effectual, and better every way, by having only one Inner Chamber. I see the same evil much complained of in England, and the abrupt way in which Lord Den-man terminated the sittings last term, must have made even counsel themselves feel the inconveniences of their practising in so many different Courts! The two divisions sit about one hour longer, daily, since your Committee—that is all—and they have had less work to do last year, than in any former one. I have not yet seen returns for the year ended in July, but from the printed Rolls I have no doubt of this fact. One division could now overtake the whole work with perfect ease. The bankruptcy business being almost all done now in the Sheriffs' Courts, has greatly thinned the Rolls, and decrees in absence, which occupy little or no time, are still increasing. The adjustment of issues before the Jury clerks, does not now occupy so much time as formerly, as they are better acquainted with their duties, and very few causes are tried, showing the continued unpopularity of the institution as at present constituted and conducted in Scotland. As to leading counsel, we have very few. Mr. M'Neill is clearly at the head; then Messrs. Rutherford, Anderson, Wood, and Robertson—five in all —a poor array, certainly, from which to supply a bench of thirteen Judges. I am more and more convinced, that one Inner House is sufficient for all the business, and this is the effectual remedy for the difficulty in getting counsel to plead cases continuously in the Outer House. Had it not. been for the Church cases, the Inner House would have been quite out of work, this winter, so that the Kirk's squabbles have been a godsend to our Courts, for without work, the job of keeping them up, would be too bad, even for Peel's majority. I remain your faithful servant. The next letter he would read, was also addressed to him by a professional gentleman of the highest respectability, and was as follows:— Edinburgh, April 8th, 1842. The number of well employed counsel at the Scotch bar does not exceed twenty; and the leading counsel are five, namely, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Solicitor-general M'Neil, Mr. Dean of Faculty Wood, Mr. Adam Anderson, and Mr. Patrick Robertson. The first two are, and have long been decided leaders Mr. Wood and Mr. Anderson only lately; that is since your select committee sat. At the most you will see there are only five. Whilst such is the number of leading counsel, and the well employed junior counsel are not above fifteen, but say twenty, in order to be within the mark, the judges are thirteen in number, subdivided into two Courts of Review, pf four judges in each, and five Lords Ordinary, who sit separately, and four of them daily. Thus, there are daily six courts sitting, at precisely the same time, besides which there are issue clerks, sitting for the adjustment of issues to be tried by juries, who require to be attended by counsel; and the leading counsel are also chiefly employed for this purpose, therefore, it may be said, truly, that there are seven tribunals sitting daily. There are a number of English counsel in the House of Commons who can well understand the bearing of these facts, and I think you might place the matter before them in a forcible light, by putting to them—

1. 1. Whether they think thirteen judges can he required to despatch the business prepared for their decisions by a bar, which reckoning the well employed counsel does not count twice their own number? I should think that English counsel, accustomed to see what 1220 is accomplished in the English courts, will be satisfied that the Scotch judges must be greatly under worked, or that assuredly there is something very far wrong in our system.
2. 2. Whether it is possible for a bar, reckoning no greater number of well-employed counsel than I have mentioned, can efficiently supply seven tribunals sitting at the same moment. They will be able to answer this from their own observation; but the actual results, the confusion, the delays, inconvenience, and obstructions which are thereby occasioned, are given in evidence to prove the fact.
3. 3. Whether it be reasonable to expect that such a bar can supply a bench, consisting of thirteen judges, with lawyers of real eminence. In point of fact, it is the great bane of the Scotch system and the Scotch courts, that we get so many inferior men placed on the bench, where first rate men only should sit. These are the simple views of the case which occur to myself; and I think you may give effect to them in such a way as to come home to the understandings even of men unacquainted practically with our profession."

He would now read them an extract from a letter in corroboration of these facts, from his learned Friend the late Lord Advocate. He had other letters which he should not detain the House with then, but if they were at all necessary in reply, he should go into them particularly. The hon. Member then read the following extract from a letter from the late Lord Advocate, Rutherford, to Mr. Cranstoun, dated London, August 10,1839:— No one who knows the low esteem in. which, from many causes, our judicial institutions are held, could doubt that if such a bill* had been introduced, it could not have been carried, but must have led to defeat, not less unpleasant to you than the Government. There was a reluctance in supporting us, even where you might least expect it. He then read an extract from a letter from Lord J. Russell to Mr. Cranstoun, dated, December 14th, 1839: — The alternative for the Government to consider, therefore, was the abandonment of the clause, or the loss of the bill. So far as my own personal opinions were concerned, the loss of the bill would have been the preferable event. I had some doubts as to the increase of salary to the Scotch judges, and it was only in deference to the sentiments of those better acquainted with the subject than myself, that I did not make a reduction of the number of judges an indispensable part of the measure. This extract he considered a very strong authority. The noble Lord said, it was A bill for the increase of salary. only in deference to the opinion of others that he gave up his own in favour of a diminution of the number of the judges and whose opinions did he refer to? Let him beg the attention of the House to the fact that the witnesses brought by the noble Lord to give evidence, were all expectants of office, with one or two exceptions. Two had been made judges since, and he had understood at the time that his hon. and learned Friend was himself on the threshold of a very high appointment. If that was not true, then public notoriety had misled him; he was in no such secrets; no one confided them to him. If they did he would never keep them a moment, and therefore he got none from either side of the House. He got party secrets in the same proportion as he did favours— he never asked for them, and therefore never got any. But he could show there had been juggling among parties who ought not to have been concerned in such matters; they had been kept from him, though he was considered enough of a party man, to vote on a party question. But this was not a party object. That was legitimate with Members of Parliament, but this was not a party object.- Here, said the hon. Member, are the Core-house job papers, and he would place them in the hands of any hon. Member. During that particular session there were only four judges doing the duty of eight; two were incapacitated from bad health; one of them was declared to be in such a state of weakness —not of mind, for he was of perfectly sound mind—but he was in such an extremely weak state of health that he could not do the duty of the Summer session. The object he had in view was to follow up the course adopted by one of the most distinguished men whoever satas President of the Supreme Court, Sir Hay Campbell, in his bill of 1785, for reducing the number of the Judges from fifteen to ten. He thought it a very rational proposal, and it was supported by the authority of Lord Jeffery, in the Edinburgh Review. He had before him a list of the amendments he moved in the Report under discussion, but would not detain the House with reading them; he merely wished, in framing these, to show the necessity of enabling the Court by means of a statute, to do that, which it could not do of itself, and which was alleged to be absolutely necessary. He therefore moved a series of amendments, eleven in number, and in them had shown what evidence had brought out on the question. He had now stated, in general terms, the object be had in view; and be might tell them, with great confidence, the opinion of the public was not more favourable with respect to the character of the Courts than his was. They denied that there was now a better despatch of business, or more wise decisions than formerly, and they complained bitterly of having two Courts sitting at the same time on questions of the same nature, trying causes on the same day, and having from each Court contradictory decisions. They complained, justly, of two co-ordinate Courts having four Judges, in each, as they would be sure to give contradictory decisions. No one in the House could deny that fact. Where there were four Judges of equal powers, they would be sure to differ in opinion, and the consequence was, the Scotch Judges were continually having unseemly differences of opinion on the Bench. With regard to the Inner House Judges, they had little or nothing to do as compared with the other Judges. He should be glad to have a bill introduced which would give them at once three or four months in the year for their vacation; reduce the number of Judges to nine or ten, and they might require four months vacation; they now took seven; but how did they take it? They took it in driblets — first three weeks, then two months, and then four. In the Scotch Courts, business was despatched by papers. They did not have witnesses produced in Court, oral evidence was seldom taken; nor was there any cross-examination of witnesses by Counsel. If they did this, they should not require so many Judges; but it was owing to the infernal system of papers— it was the infernal system of Judge-made law that enforced the necessity of so many Judges. What was the result of the system in the House of Lords? There were 800 appeals to the House of Lords, from England, Ireland, and Scotland. [Cheers.] Let the Gentlemen who cheered him, guess what was the share poor Scotland had of these appeals? They had 600 appeals out of 800. This was out of a population of 2,500,000, and thus a well-informed nation was made to appear a litigious one, from this confounded system. He had done his duty in bringing the question forward, and he would defy any Scotchman, not excepting members of the legal profession, to say that he had not justly stated the case. Before he sat down, he might refer to the opinion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, on the last occasion the question was brought forward; the substance of it was this,—he said he was no lawyer, he represented a large city, mixed largely with the inhabitants, and he stated, that there was a general feeling of disgust and dissatisfaction with the superior Courts. Gentlemen who knew the hon. Member must feel that it must be an urgent case which made him speak thus on such a point. He was satisfied he had shown a good case for being allowed to bring in a bill. He begged, also, to state, that he was called on to do this by the late Government; on the last occasion he brought this subject forward, he was asked, why he did not ask for leave to bring in a bill, and the hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered the suggestion. The bill would be a very short one, and he could not believe that the right hon. Baronet would refuse his assent to his bringing in a bill, by which alone the grievances could be remedied. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to reduce the present number of Judges in the Supreme Court of Scotland from thirteen to nine, by abolishing one of the co-ordinate Courts of review into which that Court is divided.

Sir J. Graham

could assure the hon. Gentleman that he had no reason to coin-plain of a want of courtesy on his part, because, on a former occasion, he had, at his request, postponed his motion on account of the absence of the Lord-Advocate. In the continued absence of that learned Lord, it was his misfortune to have to encounter the present motion, without his able assistance; and such being the case, he should have hesitated on determining as to the expediency of not renewing his request, had he not felt certain, that in resisting the motion he might rely upon the support of almost the whole House. His opinion on the subject had been supported by the labours of a committee selected most impartially from both sides of the House, and when he considered the names of some of the Members who sat on that committee, he could not conceive a tribunal more likely to arrive at a sound conclusion, or one more entitled to the consideration of the House. In that committee many divisions had taken place, and upon every occasion the hon. Member divided alone; the subject had therefore undergone meet discussion. The hon. Member had not stated to the House what great changes had taken place in the judicature of Scotland. The Exchequer and Admiralty jurisdiction had been abolished, together with many others, and the duties of the Judges of those Courts were now transferred to the diminished number of Judges. Now, what had been said by the late Lord-Advocate on this subject? He stated before the committee, that after so many extensive changes, that which was really necessary to Scotland was some pause in those changes. Lord Chief Justice Clerk had given a similar opinion. The hon. Gentleman had spoken contemptuously of the manner in which the criminal justice of the country was carried on, and the manner in which the Judges conducted the Circuits. Now, for his own part, he must say, that he thought the manner in which the business was conducted, amounted almost to perfection. In discharge of his official duty, he had constant communication with the Judges in Scotland, and he would undertake to say a more proper discharge of official duty, could not be found in any part of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman had stated, that the Courts of Law in Scotland were regarded by the people almost with disgust. The hon. Gentleman's motion was confined to obtaining leave to bring in a bill to diminish the number of Judges. The hon. Gentleman founded his motion on three anonymous letters. Now, he would rebut those three letters by reading the evidence of three witnesses that were examined before the committee. The first was the late Lord-Advocate, the second was the present Lord Justice Clerk, and the third the present Solicitor-general for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman had read pretty largely from the Report of the Committee, but there was one passage that bore on the motion which the hon. Member had studiously avoided reading. That passage was concurred in by all the Members of the committee except the hon. Member. [The right hon. Gentleman read a passage to the effect that the business of the Courts could not be carried on by one division alone.] With respect to the doubts entertained by the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), as to an increase in the salaries of Scotch Judges, he certainly shared in those doubts; but he differed, and continued to differ, with the noble Lord relative to the number of those Judges. He was satisfied, that the business of the Court of Session could not be conducted satisfactorily to the people of Scotland if the Judges were diminished. In the practice of the Court, written evidence was done away with, and oral evidence had begun to be generally resorted to, and every requisite reform was being brought into operation.

Mr. Rutherford

said, that he was greatly surprised to find any dissatisfaction expressed with respect to the administration of criminal law in Scotland. The conduct of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wallace) was a specimen of the nature of the opposition got up against the Scotch Courts. The hon. Member had no means of informing himself personally respecting those Courts, but he gathered a series of what he considered facts from persons on whom he thought he could rely, and then on such information he came forward in that House, and in language the most reprehensible, censured the proceedings of the Supreme Court of Scotland. He hoped, there would be a pause to further change. Though he quite agreed that the Court of Session had many faults, he thought that its business was conducted in a much better manner than it had been; though still low, it was rising in public estimation. With these views, he could not support the motion of the hon. Member.

Mr. Wallace

replied, there were thirteen Judges in the Supreme Court, and not more than twenty well-employed counsel. That fact stood uncontradicted. There were seven courts all sitting at the same time, and only five leading counsel to serve the seven. This, too, was uncontradicted. It required little algebra to show that this was not a proper state of things. Now, with respect to the Select Committee appointed to investigate this subject, thirteen witnesses had been examined before it. Six of these witnesses were looking out for judgeships. Two of them had been made Judges. Three of them were expecting to be made Judges. Such was the farce which had been acted in the committee, which was like the report completely one-sided. How did they get rid of the East-India monopoly, and the West-India monopoly, and all other monopolies? Were they in those cases guided by the testimony of those who were interested in the monopoly? Nothing could be more absurd, unsatisfactory, or disgusting in the opinion of the people of Scotland, than the administration of justice in the Supreme Court in Scotland, and the deference shown in this House to Lords Advocate and their opinions. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the administration of criminal justice in the County Courts. In the one case it was placed on a cheap footing, in the other on an expensive and had one. The Judges did not sit in the Supreme Courts more than four months and a half in the year. He was perfectly satisfied that, with the exception of those parties who were interested in the present system, he would receive the almost unanimous approbation of his countrymen for bringing forward the motion. He did not complain of the administration of justice in the County Criminal Courts, but its administration in the Supreme Court was a positive farce. In Edinburgh there were three Judges sitting daily on the most trifling questions, even petty offences often committed by mere children, as well as on similar causes to those decided at Glasgow and elsewhere, with one or two judges at most. So little is there to do, they had to spread out the business as much as possible. There was nothing to prevent the sheriffs from performing the whole of the duty. He believed, that the opposition to a change arose from those who were interested in the present state of things, and in this, belief he would divide the House upon his motion.

The House divided:—Aves 22; Noes 187;-Majority 165.

List of the AYES.
Brotherton, J.	Morris, D.
Chapman, B.	Mostyn, hn. E. M. L
Crawford, W. S.	Murphy, F. S.
Dashwood, G. H.	Napier, Sir C.
Duncombe, T.	Pechell, Captain
Dundas, hon. J. C.	Power, J.
Fielden, J.	Watson, W. H.
Forster, M.	Williams, W.
Gill, T.	Wood, B.
Hastie, A.
Hume, J.	TELLERS.
Jervis, J.	Wallace,
Johnston, A.	Bowring, Dr.

List of the NOES.
Ackers, J.	Bailey, J.
Acton, Col.	Bailey, J. jun.
Adderley, C. B.	Baillie, Col.
Alford, Visct.	Baird, W.
Allix, J. P.	Bannerman, A.
Antrobus, E.	Baring, hon. W. B.
Arbuthnott, hon. H.	Baring, rt. hon. F. T.
Arkwright, G.	Barrington, Visct.
Attwood, M.	Baskerville, T. B.

Bernard, Visct.	Grogan, E.
Blackburne, J. I.	Halford, H.
Blake, M. J.	Hamilton, J
Blakemore, R.	Hamilton, W. J.
Bodkin, W. H.	Hamilton, Lord C.
Boldero, H. G.	Hampden, R.
Borthwick, P.	Hanmer, Sir J.
Botfield, B.	Hay, Sir A. L.
Broadley, H.	Hayes, Sir E.
Broadwood, H.	Henley, J. W.
Bruce, Lord E.	Hepburn, Sir T. B.
Bruce, C. L. C.	Herbert, hon. S.
Buckley, E.	Hillsborough, Earl of
Burrell, Sir C. M.	Hinde, J. H.
Burroughes, H. N.	Hodgson, R.
Campbell, A.	Holmes, hon. W. A.
Cardwell, E.	Hope, hon. C.
Cavendish, hn. C. C.	Howard, hn. C. W.G.
Charteris, hon. F.	Howard, P. H.
Chelsea, Visct.	Ingestre, Visct.
Christopher, R, A.	Irton, S.
Clayton, R. R	Jackson, J. D.
Clements, H. J.	Jermyn, Earl
Clerk, Sir G.	Jocelyn, Visct.
Cockburn, right hon.	Johnson, W. G.
Sir G.	Johnstone, Sir J.
Codrington, C. W.	Jones, Captain
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.
Collett, W. R.
Colvile, C. R.	Law, hon. C. E.
Corry, rt. hon. H.	Lawson, A.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Legh, G. C.
Craig, W. G.	Leicester, Earl of
Cripps, W.	Lincoln, Earl of
Dalmeny, Lord	Lindsay, H. H.
Damer, hon. col.	Lockhart, W.
Denison, E. B.	Lowther, J. H.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Lowther, hon. Col.
Douglas, J. D. S.	Mackenzie, T.
Drummond, H. H.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Mc Geachy, F. A.
Dundas, F.	Mahon, Visct.
Du Pre, C. G.	Manners, Lord J.
Egerton, Sir P.	Martin, C. W.
Eliot, Lord	Master, T. W. C.
Escott, B.	Masterman, J.
Farnham, E. B.	Meynell, Captain
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Miles, P. W. S.
Ferrand, W. B.	Miles, W.
Filmer, Sir E.	Morgan, O.
Fitzroy, H. H.	Munday, E. M.
Follett, Sir W. B.	Neeld, J.
Forbes, W.	Neeld, J.
Fuller, A. E.	Newport, Visct.
Gaskell, J. M.	Nicholl, right hon. J.
Gladstone, right hon. W. E.	Norreys, Lord
	O'Brien, A. S.
Gordon, hon. Captain	O'Brien, J.
Gordon, Lord F.	Packe, C. W.
Gore, M.	Palmer, R.
Goring, C.	Palmerston, Visct.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Plumptre, J. P.
Graham, rt. ho. Sir J.	Polhill, F.
Granby, Marquess of	Pollock, Sir F.
Greenall, P.	Pringle, A.
Greene, T.	Rashleigh, W.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Reade, W, M.

Reid, Sir J. R.	Stuart, H.
Repton, G. W. J.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.	Talbot, C. R. M.
Round, J.	Tennent, J. E.
Rushbrooke, Col.	Thesiger, F.
Rutherfurd, A.	Thornhill, G.
Sandon, Visct.	Tollemache, J.
Scarlett, hon. R. C.	Trotter, J.
Scott, hon. F.	Turnor, C.
Seymour, Lord	Vere, Sir C. B.
Shaw, right hon. F.	Vivian, J. E.
Sheppard, T.	Vyvyan, Sir R. R.;
Shirley, E. J.	Williams, T. B.
Shirley, E. P.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Smith, rt hn. R. V.	Wodehouse, E.
Smollett, A.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Somerset, Lord G.	Young, J.
Sotheron, T. H. S.
Stanley, Lord	TELLEBS.
Stewart, J.	Freemantle, Sir T.
Stuart, Lord J.	Baring, H.