Lords Sitting of 20 April 1807

SCOTCH JUDICATURE BILL.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland suggested to the house, whether it was really fair in the noble lords opposite,
494
to engraft upon a bill, which had undergone the most mature consideration, both in the house and in the country, a new bill, extremely varying, and altogether different in its principle? If the noble lords disapproved of the measure, would it not be more consistent with their duties to reject it at once, and then to come before the legislature with their own proposition, having given that proper parliamentary notice which the usage of the house had heretofore sanctioned, and which was peculiarly incumbent on the proposal of such an important measure, affecting as it did so great and respectable a part of the empire. But, if it was the intention of the house to go into a committee, he was anxious to know from the noble and learned lord (Eldon) in what way the necessary questions should be put to the Scotch Judges? and whether they were to be examined upon oath or not?
The Lord Chancellorthought the noble baron fully competent to decide, both on the manner and the matter of examining the Scotch Judges. With respect to the inconsistency and want of fairness attributed to those who supported the proposed amendments, he should only for himself say, that he never pledged himself to any further support, than a bare admission, that some alteration was necessary in the manner of administering civil justice in Scotland. Whether the present bill was rejected or not, he was not prepared to say what line of conduct he would pursue; whether, in the first case, he would propose any new measure; but he would certainly, if the house went into a committee, follow up his own opinion, by proposing and supporting such amendments, as to him appeared correct and advantageous.
Lord Grenvillewould not desert his duty and opinions, although other noble lords were careless in the performance of the one, and the recollection of the other. Whatever might be the fate of the bill which he had the honour to propose, he would continue to support its principle and provisions; and he trusted, for the credit of the house, that it would not suffer a measure to drop, to which, scarce a month ago, it gave the most unanimous support.
Lord Howkesburydenied that the proposal for dividing the court of session into two chambers, instead of three, as originally proposed, was any violation of the principle of the bill, and therefore was a just and correct object for amendment.
Lord Kinnairdcontended that the amend-

495
ment, as proposed by the noble baron, was complete alteration of the principle of the bill, which, after such uncommon industry, his noble friend had submitted to the consideration of their lordships.
Lord Lauderdaletook a survey of the different opinions expressed respecting the merits of the bill, and contended that not only a majority, but that of the best informed men in Scotland, had given it their approbation.
The Lord Chancellorin explanation, said, that he would propose a motion which might bring the matter to issue. It was now his intention to move; that the committee be deferred till Thursday next, that their lordships might have time to make up their minds upon the subject, and that then he might take the sense of the house upon it, and afterwards, if necessary, move, that the committee be postponed for three weeks, for the purpose of allowing time to prepare another bill.
The Duke of Atholsuggested the propriety of discharging the order for the attendance of the Scotch judges.
Lord Melvilletook up the suggestion and gave notice that on Thursday next he should move, that the order for the attendance of the Scotch judges be discharged.
Lord Lauderdalewas exceedingly surprised at this motion; and asked, if it was thought necessary to move for the attendance of the Scotch judges, upon a bill, the whole of which had been submitted for a full year to all those persons in Scotland who were most competent to form an opinion of its merits, how much more so must it not be necessary to have the opinion of the Scotch judges upon a bill, of the nature of which nothing at all had as yet transpired?—The proposition of the lord chancellor was then agreed to: the house resolved itself into a committee, pro forma, and it was next ordered that the committee do sit again on Thursday.