§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEstated that he should postpone the third reading of this Bill to Monday week, in order to give more time for the people of Scotland to express their sentiments upon it.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a third time upon Monday, 25th June."
§ MR. CRAUFURDhoped the hon. and learned Lord would withdraw the Bill.
§ MR. F. SCOTTagreed with the hon. Member. The Bill was hurried through to its present stage, and he hoped the hon. and learned Lord would withdraw it.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEhad no intention 2134 of precipitating or withdrawing the Bill. It was a Bill of very great importance.
MR. LOCKHARThad never known a Bill pressed through with such haste. It was impossible the people of Scotland could know anything of its provisions.
§ MR. COWANbore testimony to the repugnance with which the Bill was regarded by a considerable part of the legal profession in Scotland. He hoped the hon. and learned Lord would endeavour to make the Bill more conformable to the feelings of that profession, or, if that were impossible, that he would withdraw it.
§ MR. BLACKBURNdeprecated a division in the absence of the Scotch Members.
§ MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, his constituents were opposed to the Bill also.
§ MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, all the communications he had received on the subject were so strong that he should move that the Bill be read that day three months.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out "Monday, 25th June," in order to add the words "this day three months," instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'Monday, 25th June,' stand part of the Question."
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEdid not at all wish to take the opinion of the House on the Bill then, as he wished to take the sense of the people of Scotland still further on its provisions. He did not deny that the Bill had elicited a considerable difference of opinion. One part of the legal profession was against it; the other, the Faculty of Advocates, was for it. The object of the Bill was to remedy the evils arising out of the absolute right of choice given to suitors in the courts in Scotland seventeen years ago. The inconvenience created by their exercising this right was so great that, while one division of the courts was overtaxed with work, the other division was quite unemployed. In fact the delay almost amounted to a denial of justice, and demanded a remedy at the hands of the Legislature. He did not say he was bound to press the Bill this Session, but he thought it was a subject which required a remedy as soon as possible. He therefore hoped that the House would let him take the Bill on the Monday week.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, that if the House 2135 went to a division he would vote for the Bill, although he thought it better that it should not be proceeded with now.
§ MR. F. SCOTTthought the suitor would be placed at a disadvantage by the Bill. The Faculty of Writers to the Signet were unanimously opposed to it.
§ MR. CRAUFURDsaid, the Bill would be all very well if the Court of Session were constituted like the English Court of Chancery. The object would have been attained by a joint court of appeal, but it was not wise to place it in the power of the Clerk of Session to partition the business. It would be better to postpone the Bill until next Session.
§ MR. COWANthought the people of Scotland deserved a little more consideration than could be given to their interests at that hour of the morning.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Third Reading deferred till Monday, 25th June.
§ The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.