SECOND READING. (Hansard, 9 July 1857)

§ MR. BLACK
said, that he felt several objections to this Bill, which would operate prejudicially to the interests of suitors. It had been condemned by the Society of Writers to the Signet and by the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts. Its main object was to empower the Lord President to transfer causes from the first to the second division of the Court of Session. The plea was, that the first division was overwhelmed with business. He maintained, however, that by sitting three weeks or a month beyond its usual time the first division could easily get rid of its arrears. The suitors in the Court of Session had enjoyed the privilege of choosing the Judge by whom their causes should be tried for a long series of years, and it had been found exceedingly beneficial. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
seconded the Amendment.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, he felt strongly the necessity of some measure of 1206 this kind. It was intended to remedy a state of things which had been found to act prejudicially in Scotland, and the Society of Solicitors were in favour of it. It was said that it would deprive the suitors of their right. It would deprive the pursuer of a right which he never possessed before 1838. In that year an absolute right of choice between the Judges was given to pursuers—a most injurious step; for, however able the Judges, one would always be more popular than the other. The consequence was, that one court fell into arrear, while the other, the less popular Judge, became languid from want of employment. The option presented by the three common law courts of England was not at all a parallel ease. The Court of Session now presented this spectacle:—That in 1856 there was 236 causes ready for trial in the first division, and 37 in the other. The remedies he proposed were, to take away from the court certain summary business; and with regard to the other, to give the Lord President a power of distribution, similar to that exercised in the English Court of Chancery by the Lord Chancellor. The right of choice in the suitor was unfounded in principle; there was no reason why the pursuer should have a choice of courts rather than the defender, and he considered that all Judges should be equal to their duties, in which case the public interests would be burthened by a rapid despatch of business by means of a just distribution of labour. He, therefore, hoped the Bill would be read a second time, and in Committee he should be prepared to listen to Amendments.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, that while admitting that some change was necessary in the Court of Session, he doubted whether the remedy proposed was the correct one. The allocation of causes in Chancery was made by the Lord Chancellor, as Superior Judge, to whom an appeal lay from the decisions of the Vice Chancellors. In Scotland there was no appeal from the decisions of the Court of Session, except to the House of Lords. He would suggest that the two divisions should be fused into one court for the purpose of hearing appeals from each division. This was similar to what was done with, the law courts here. He doubted the propriety of giving to the Lord President, the popular Judge, the right of distributing causes to the other court. A suitor who wished his cause to be tried by the Lord President, finding 1207 it sent before another court, might prefer to withdraw it. To obviate the objection arising from the pursuer having the power of choosing his court, he would give the defendant power to remove the cause on reasons being shown for it.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
said, the Bill was very unpopular in Scotland. It was a measure promoted by the Judges, but he believed that if they had done the extra work that was expected of them, when many years ago they received extra pay, the accumulation of business now complained of would not have taken place. He hoped the Bill would be withdrawn. It was not a case of urgency, as was shown by the absence of petitions in favour of the Bill.

§ MR. DUNLOP
said, the Bill was brought forward for the sake of the public and the suitors, with the view of getting rid of the existing arrears of three or four years. The extended sittings referred to by the hon. Member might have kept down the accumulation now complained of, but would not have prevented it altogether. The Bill was in some respects open to objection, but he, nevertheless, hoped it would be read a second time.