COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 7 August 1875)

§ MR. MAITLAND
considered he should not be doing his duty if he did not ask for attention to this Bill. It was a Bill of great importance, because it sanctioned a very bad principle indeed. He should, perhaps, have had greater respect for the policy of the Government if they had shown more thoroughness in what they had attempted; but the Bill, which began by asking if three new Judges were needed, had ended in a request for merely two new Judges. That certainly showed that even in the opinion of the Government themselves their original proposition was not one which ought to be supported, and he looked upon their present proposal as being equally uncalled-for. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had a very great acquaintance with the county of Lancashire; and what was the position of Liverpool in that county as to local Judges? Counting everybody who could be counted, there were not more than four local Judges in Liverpool. He (Mr. Maitland) believed that the number ought more properly to be said to be throe, while in Glasgow at the present time they had five inferior Judges, in addition to three others that were in the county. Therefore, they had something like eight local Judges connected with Glasgow and its surroundings; while in Liverpool, which was not inferior in importance and population, and which, in fact, did more business, there were only three, or at the most four, local Judges. He should like some explanation of this anomaly, because if the people of Glasgow were to have these two additional Judges, he did not see how they could refuse Liverpool a similar number. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: We only ask for one more.] They asked for two, because they asked for a stipendiary magistrate, who was to be all intents and purposes a Sheriff substitute. Altogether, he did not think this was a charge which ought to be 719 made on the Consolidated Fund. The Scotch Members had been charged with obstructing the policy of the Government in regard to the Sheriffs (Scotland) Bill. In their previous Bill the Government proposed to very largely increase the Sheriffs of Scotland—he believed by at least 20—which would have caused a charge of £40,000 per annum, and this he did not think would have been a very gratifying result, and he was glad they had succeeded in getting the previous Bill withdrawn.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, that the entire judicial system of Scotland required revision, especially as regarded the manner in which some of the Judges and officers of the Courts received their salaries. It was open to grave objection to have salaries of the Courts and Sheriffs of Scotland drawn in two separate accounts—one the Civil Service Estimates, and the other the Finance Accounts, rendering it impossible to ascertain the numbers of different officers or the rates of salary. There was also another objection to the practice of remunerating parties by fees. He believed the Lord Advocate was paid in five different ways. He did not begrudge the right hon. and learned Gentleman his salary, and if he had his way he would make it more. But it should be conditional on his whole time being devoted to the business of Scotland, and that he should be prohibited from appearing in any appeal or other cases. In conclusion, he strongly objected to a Bill of that nature being proceeded with at the fag-end of the Session, when many of the Scotch Members, having left town, could not be present to take part in the discussion.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he should be ready, when the proper time arrived, to discuss the question of the entire judicial system of Scotland; but that Bill had really little to do with the matter. It dealt with a pressing want which was felt at this moment. When he was in Glasgow last year, he took great pains to ascertain whether the want was a bonâ fide one or not, and he came to the conclusion that there was a real and actual want of an additional Judge for that city He, therefore, hoped that the House would allow the Bill to proceed, as it only asked for one Judge, and not two, as stated by the hon. Member.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 22, to leave out "funds from which the salaries of sheriffs are payable," and insert "Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
objected to the proposed change. He did not want the additional charge to be put on the Consolidated Fund. It was a source of great inconvenience to have public officers paid in two, or more ways; at present, some salaries were inserted in the Civil Estimates and annually voted by Parliament, whilst some salaries were inserted in the Finance Accounts, as part of the sum voted, in the lump, as a charge on the Consolidated Fund. The result was that no hon. Member could ascertain the numbers and salaries of the Sheriffs, and other officers of the Sheriff Courts, owing to the whole being inserted in lump sums without information as to numbers or rates of salary. He believed that the last Act passed, about five years ago, rendered this mode of paying salaries to Sheriffs quite unnecessary.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the officers of the Treasury had stated that the Consolidated Fund was the proper phrase to use in the Bill.